ORDER : B. Veerappa, J. - The petitioner-Chamarajendra Zoological Garden, Mysore is before this Court for a writ of certiorari to quash the order dated 4-2-2012 and 11-7-2012 in HD No. 99 of 2003 on the tile of the Labour Court, Mysore as per Annexures-G and K respectively. 2. Smt. Geetha Devi Papanna, teamed Counsel appearing for petitioner fairly submits that she does not press the prayer (c) in the petition. Accordingly, prayer (c) is dismissed as not pressed. 3. It is the case of the petitioner that the 1st respondent joined the petitioner's establishment on daily wages and he was regularised on 1-10-1992 as Animal Keeper/Gardener on probation for a period of two years and his duty is to attend the Zoological Garden, Mysore to look after the Chimpanzee's feeding, nourishment and also to take care of the animals without causing any sort of stress or discomfort to the animals, while performing the duties as Housekeeper, Till 10-2-2003, the female Chimpanzee "Meena" was quite hale and healthy and was in usual good health condition. However, on 11-2-2003 at 9.30 a.m., the respondent reported to the Executive Director that the Chimpanzee "Meena" is found to be dull and depressed. Though he knew' that the right hand of the Chimpanzee "Meena" was injured, he had purposefully hidden the real fact. Based on the report of Dr. Sundar Raj, the veterinarian of the Zoo has provided symptomatic treatment to the Chimpanzee "Meena". The injuries caused to the Chimpanzee was suspected to be occurred during the duty' hours of the respondent and it gave raise to a suspicion whether the injury caused to the Chimpanzee "Meena" was accidental or deliberately caused by the respondent. The respondent was also a suspected person in the case of unnatural death of 2 Emus (Flight less birds) on 6-12-2002 in the Zoo. It further leads to suspicion that the respondent was involved in causing trauma to the Chimpanzee "Meena". The incident might have occurred due to the irresponsibility of the respondent or could be deliberate and thus the animal suffered serious injuries on account of the said incident and subsequently died. Hence, the petitioner has initiated disciplinary proceedings against the respondent in accordance with the service rules. 4. The incident might have occurred due to the irresponsibility of the respondent or could be deliberate and thus the animal suffered serious injuries on account of the said incident and subsequently died. Hence, the petitioner has initiated disciplinary proceedings against the respondent in accordance with the service rules. 4. It is the further case of the petitioner that a charge memo was served on the respondent on two occasions i.e., 16-2-2003 and 17-2-2003 but the respondent has not replied to the same. The petitioner appointed Inquiry Officer and a Presenting Officer. The enquiry was conducted in accordance with law and the report was submitted by the Enquiry Officer holding that the respondent was guilty of charge. Based on the report, the Disciplinary authority by an order dated 16-5-2003 dismissed the respondent-employee from service. Aggrieved by the dismissal order, he had approached the Labour Court under the provisions of Section 10(4-A) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The Labour Court considering the preliminary issue, by the order dated 4-2-2012 held that the Domestic Enquiry conducted by the petitioner was not fair and proper and ultimately after adjudication of the dispute between the parties under Section 10(4-A) of the Industrial Disputes Act, by the impugned award dated 11th July, 2012 allowed the claim in part and the application filed by the petitioner for amendment of the statement of objections was rejected. Further, the labour Court directed the petitioner to reinstate the workman into services to the same post held by him along with 40% back wages from the date of removal from service or from the date of the said order being final. Hence, the present writ petition is filed. 5. The respondent-workman has not filed any writ petition against the denial of 60% back wages from the date of removal. 6. This Court by the order dated 14-2-2013 had granted the interim order of stay of Annexures-G and K and again on 16-4-2013 it was clarified, that the interim order shall be subject to compliance with the provisions of Section 17-B of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The said order is still in force. 7. I have heard the learned Counsel for the parties to the lis. 8. The said order is still in force. 7. I have heard the learned Counsel for the parties to the lis. 8. Smt. Geetha Devi Papanna, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner vehemently contended that the finding of the Labour Court that the petitioner provides amusement to the visitors entering to the Zoological Garden is based on the assumption and presumption and has no bearing to the actual object and task i.e., research and survey of the animals undertaken by the petitioner-Institution. She further contended that when the Labour Court on preliminary issue regarding domestic enquiry held that the enquiry conducted was not fair and proper, on the basis of the same, the petitioner filed an application for amendment of statement of objections by way of abundant caution before the Labour Court seeking for an opportunity to the petitioner to put forth its case. When the Labour Court came to the conclusion that the enquiry was not properly conducted and the preliminary enquiry and regular enquiry was conducted by the same person, the Labour Court ought to have remanded the matter to the Disciplinary Authority and hence she sought to allow the writ petition by quashing the impugned order and award. 9. Per contra, Sri M.C. Pyati, learned Counsel appearing for respondent 1 sought to justify the impugned order and award passed by the Labour Court and strenuously contended that the respondent has worked in the petitioner-institution for more than 25 years without any blemish and he was so affectionate towards all the animals including Chimpanzee and it was not the mistake of the workman and he had not caused any damage or injury to the Chimpanzee "Meena" as alleged by the petitioner. He further contended that the domestic enquiry conducted was not fair and proper. Therefore, the Labour Court was justified in passing the impugned award. He further contended that since this Court by an interim order dated 16-4-2013 has granted Section 17-B wages under the Industrial Disputes Act and the same is still in force and if this Court comes to the conclusion that the matter requires reconsideration. The wages under Section 17-B of the Industrial Disputes Act has to be continued till disposal of the dispute between the parties. Therefore, he sought to dismiss the present writ petition. 10. The wages under Section 17-B of the Industrial Disputes Act has to be continued till disposal of the dispute between the parties. Therefore, he sought to dismiss the present writ petition. 10. Sri M. Munigangappa, learned HCGP appearing for respondent 2 sought to support the case of the learned Counsel for the petitioner. 11. I have given my anxious consideration to the arguments advanced by the learned Counsel for the parties and perused the entire material on record. It is undisputed fact that the present respondent came to be appointed on daily wage basis and his services came to be regularised on 1-10-1992 as animal keeper/gardener on probation for two years. On the basis of the information received with regard to the injury caused to the Chimpanzee suspicion. The Assistant Director-M.W. 2 has conducted preliminary enquiry regarding the illness of Chimpanzee "Meena" and submitted a report to the Director and he was once again appointed as Enquiry Officer in the regular enquiry. He has admitted that basing on the preliminary enquiry report, he had conducted domestic enquiry bearing in mind the preliminary enquiry report and he had used the knowledge gained by him in the preliminary enquiry by conducting domestic enquiry. It is well-settled that such an enquiry is vitiated and therefore the Labour Court ought to have remanded the matter to the Disciplinary Authority for fresh consideration. 12. The charge memo was issued to the respondent-workman on 16-2-2003 and 17-2-2003 but he has not replied. However, he participated in the inquiry proceedings. The Enquiry Officer after holding detailed inquiry submitted report holding that the charges made against respondent was proved. Ultimately the Disciplinary Authority on the basis of the report of the Enquiry Officer by the order dated 16-5-2003 dismissed him from services. 13. It is undisputed fact that being aggrieved by the dismissal order passed by the Disciplinary Authority, the petitioner raised industrial dispute under the provisions of Section 10(4-A) of the Industrial Disputes Act. The Labour Court by a preliminary enquiry dated 4-2-2012 held that the Domestic Enquiry conducted against respondent-workman by the petitioner was not fair and proper. It is also undisputed fact that in view of the said order, the petitioner filed an application on 8-5-2012 under Section 151 of Civil Procedure Code, 1908 to amend the statement of objections filed to the main petition. It is also undisputed fact that in view of the said order, the petitioner filed an application on 8-5-2012 under Section 151 of Civil Procedure Code, 1908 to amend the statement of objections filed to the main petition. The said application came to be rejected along with the main dispute on 11th July, 2012. The Labour Court considering the entire material on record came to the conclusion that the person holding the preliminary enquiry is bound to have been influenced during the course of factual investigation which he has observed and that the Officer who has carried out the preliminary enquiry should be wholly debarred from acting as a Disciplinary Authority for the obvious reason that he would all throughout be conscious of the fact that he had collected certain material at the preliminary enquiry and would be unconsciously prejudiced by the material gathered by him at the back of the Delinquent Officer and also recorded a finding that since the domestic enquiry conducted is not fair and proper, the finding given by the Enquiry Officer on the basis of such imperfect and improper domestic enquiry no sanctity in law is vitiated. The Labour Court after placing reliance on the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Shambhu Nath Goyal v. Bank of Baroda and Others, 1983 (47) FLR 438 (SC) held that the enquiry conducted against the petitioner is not fair and proper and improper enquiry was conducted without considering any material produced and without giving opportunity to the workman. 14. When the Labour Court recorded such a finding of fact, it ought to have remanded the matter to the Disciplinary Authority to hold fresh enquiry by appointing proper person in accordance with law. The same has lot been done in the present case. It is also not in dispute that when the preliminary enquiry held is not fair and proper an opportunity should have been given to the petitioner to lead further evidence. Though an application is filed to amend the pleadings of the main objections, the same was rejected. The Tribunal ought to have given sufficient opportunity to the management as well as the workman to prove their respective cases. Therefore, the matter requires reconsideration by the Disciplinary Authority. 15. Though an application is filed to amend the pleadings of the main objections, the same was rejected. The Tribunal ought to have given sufficient opportunity to the management as well as the workman to prove their respective cases. Therefore, the matter requires reconsideration by the Disciplinary Authority. 15. The Labour Court erred in holding that the petitioner has not stated in specific words that it has reserved its right to adduce evidence to prove the charge in case, Domestic Enquiry conducted is not fair and proper. The Labour Court failed to notice that the workman was not feeding well. Hippopotamus animal, found absent when surprise inspection was made, though he was entrusted with responsibility of night patrolling in the Zoo, negligently left the door of 'Haned Wolf' accepting illegal gratification of Rs. 10/- from the Visitors for allowing them to take photographs, which is against the policy of petitioner-Zoo and he is responsible for the death of the Chimpanzee by name 'Meena' by his negligent attitude. It is also not in dispute that the Labour Court by an order dated 4-2-2012 on preliminary issue has held that the Domestic Enquiry was not fair and proper and petitioner has to be given an opportunity to establish the charge. Admittedly, the petitioner filed an application on 8-5-2012 for amendment of the statement of objections filed to the main petition, the Labour Court ought to lave remanded the matter to the Disciplinary Authority in order to do justice between the parties. 16. For the reasons stated above, writ petition is allowed: (a) The impugned order and award passed by the Labour Court are hereby set aside. The matter is remanded to the Disciplinary Authority for reconsideration and to pass fresh orders strictly in accordance with law after giving sufficient opportunity, both . the petitioner and the respondent-workman within a period of-three months from the date of receipt of the copy of this order. (b) The respondent shall co-operate with the enquiry. (c) During the pendency of the proceedings before the Disciplinary Authority, the petitioner shall pay Section 17-B of ID Act. Wages to the respondent. (d) The respondent is also permitted to file any statement or documents before the Disciplinary Authority. If such documents are filed the same shall be considered. (e) All the contentions urged before this Court by both the parties are left open to be urged before the Disciplinary Authority.