JUDGMENT : Yogendra Kumar Srivastava, J. 1. Supplementary counter affidavit filed by Ms. Bushra Maryam on behalf of the respondent no. 3 is taken on record. 2. Sri. Diptiman Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner has stated that he does not propose to file any response to the aforesaid supplementary counter affidavit. 3. With the consent of the parties the writ petition is taken up for final disposal as per the Rules of the Court. 4. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 5. The present petition seeks to challenge the award dated 27.03.2019, published on 25.06.2019, passed by the Labour Court, U.P. Saharanpur in Adjudication Case No. 69 of 2008, whereby the Labour Court while answering the reference with regard to the legality/ validity of the termination of the services of the respondent no. 3-workman w.e.f. 14.03.2008 has held the termination to be illegal/invalid and directed his reinstatement with full back wages and consequential benefits. 6. The sole contention raised on behalf of the petitioner is that the services of the respondent-workman had been terminated pursuant to a domestic enquiry and the Labour Court having framed an issue with regard to the fairness of the domestic enquiry and having held the same to be not fair and proper it ought to have granted opportunity to the petitioner-employer to lead evidence and prove the case before the Labour Court. It is submitted that upon coming to the conclusion that the domestic enquiry was not fair and proper, the Labour Court could not have straightaway proceeded to hold the termination to be illegal/invalid without grant of opportunity to the petitioner-employer to prove the case before the Labour Court. 7. Counsel for the respondent no. 3-workman submits that though a plea was raised in the written statement filed by the employer that in the event the domestic enquiry is held to be not fair and proper it may be permitted to lead evidence and prove the case before the Labour Court, but the order-sheet does not indicate that the said plea was pressed by the employer at any stage of the proceedings. 8. 8. In order to appreciate the controversy involved it would be relevant to advert to the legal position with regard to the scope of the powers exercisable by a Labour Court while deciding a dispute relating to the legality and correctness of a termination order passed against the workman pursuant to a domestic enquiry and the rights of the employer to lead evidence and defend the order of termination before the Labour Court. 9. The right of the Management to defend its action solely on the basis of a domestic enquiry by demonstrating it to be fair and proper, or taking the other course of relying firstly on the validity of domestic enquiry and alternatively and without prejudice to the plea that the enquiry is fair and proper also seeking to adduce evidence before the Tribunal to justify its action was upheld in the case of Management of Ritz Theatre (P) Ltd. Delhi vs. Workmen, AIR 1963 SC 295 . The observations made in the judgment in this regard are as follows: “12...In enquiries of this kind, the first question which the Tribunal has to consider is whether a proper enquiry has been held or not. Logically, it is only where the Tribunal is satisfied that a proper enquiry has not been held or that the enquiry having been held properly the findings recorded at such an enquiry are perverse, that the Tribunal derives jurisdiction to deal with the merits of the dispute. It is quite conceivable, and in fact it happens in many cases, that the employer may rely on the enquiry in the first instance and alternatively and without prejudice to his plea that the enquiry is proper and binding, may seek to lead additional evidence. It would, we think, be unfair to hold that merely by adopting such a course, the employer gives up his plea that the enquiry was proper and that the Tribunal should not go into the merits of the dispute for itself. It would, we think, be unfair to hold that merely by adopting such a course, the employer gives up his plea that the enquiry was proper and that the Tribunal should not go into the merits of the dispute for itself. If the view taken by the Tribunal was held to be correct, it would lead to this anomaly that the employer would be precluded from justifying the dismissal of his employee by leading additional evidence unless he takes the risk of inviting the Tribunal to deal with the merits for itself, because as soon as he asks for permission to lead additional evidence, it would follow that he gives up his stand based on the holding of the domestic enquiry. Otherwise, it may have to be held that in all such cases no evidence should be led on the merits unless the issue about the enquiry is tried as a preliminary issue. If the finding on that preliminary issue is in favour of the employer, then, no additional evidence need be cited by the employer; if the finding on the said issue is against him, permission will have to be given to the employer to cite additional evidence. Instead of following such an elaborate and somewhat cumbersome procedure, if the employer seeks to lead evidence in addition to the evidence adduced at the departmental enquiry and the employees are also given an opportunity to lead additional evidence, it would be open to the Tribunal first to consider the preliminary issue and then to proceed to deal with the merits in case the preliminary issue is decided against the employer. That, in our opinion, is the true and correct legal position in this matter.” 10. The question as to whether in a case where no enquiry as required under the applicable Standing Orders had been held could the Management justify the order of dismissal before the Industrial Tribunal was subject matter of consideration in the case of Workmen of the Motipur Sugar Factory Pvt. Ltd. vs. Motipur Sugar Factory Pvt. Ltd. AIR 1965 SC 1803 . The observations made in the judgment in this regard are as follows: “12. The observations made in the judgment in this regard are as follows: “12. If it is held that in cases where the employer dismisses his employee without holding an enquiry, the dismissal must be set aside by the Industrial Tribunal only on that ground, it would inevitably mean that the employer will immediately proceed to hold the enquiry and pass an order dismissing the employee once again. In that case, another industrial dispute would arise and the employer would be entitled to rely upon the enquiry which he had held in the meantime. This course would mean delay and on the second occasion it will entitle the employer to claim the benefit of the domestic enquiry. On the other hand, if in such cases the employer is given an opportunity to justify the impugned dismissal on the merits, the employee has the advantage of having the merits of his case being considered by the tribunal for itself and that clearly would be to the benefit of the employee. That is why this Court has consistently held that if the domestic enquiry is irregular, invalid or improper, the tribunal may give an opportunity to the employer to prove his case and in doing so, the tribunal tries the merits itself. This view is consistent with the approach which industrial adjudication generally adopts with a view to do justice between the parties without relying too much on technical considerations and with the object of avoiding delay in the disposal of industrial disputes...” 11. The nature of the jurisdiction exercised by an Industrial Tribunal while examining the validity and propriety of a domestic enquiry held by the Management came up for consideration in the case of Delhi Cloth and General Mills Co. vs. Ludh Budh Singh, (1972) 1 SCC 595 wherein it was held that in a case where the termination order has been passed pursuant to a domestic enquiry it is open to the Management to request the Tribunal to try the validity of the domestic enquiry as a preliminary issue and also ask for an opportunity to adduce evidence before the Tribunal, if the finding on the preliminary enquiry is against the Management. The principles culled out in the judgment are as follows: “61. The principles culled out in the judgment are as follows: “61. From the above decisions the following principles broadly emerge: (1) If no domestic enquiry had been held by the management, or if the management makes it clear that it does not rely upon any domestic enquiry that may have been held by it, it is entitled to straightway adduce evidence before the Tribunal justifying its action. The Tribunal is bound to consider that evidence so adduced before it, on merits and give a decision thereon. In such a case, it is not necessary for the Tribunal to consider the validity of the domestic enquiry as the employer himself does not rely on it. (2) If a domestic enquiry had been held, it is open to the management to rely upon the domestic enquiry held by it, in the first instance, and alternatively and without prejudice to its plea that the enquiry is proper and binding, simultaneously adduce additional evidence before the Tribunal justifying its action. In such a case no inference can be drawn, without anything more that the management has given up the enquiry conducted by it. (3) When the management relies on the enquiry conducted by it, and also simultaneously adduces evidence before the Tribunal, without prejudice to its plea that the enquiry proceedings are proper, it is the duty of the Tribunal, in the first instance, to consider whether the enquiry proceedings conducted by the management, are valid and proper. If the Tribunal is satisfied that the enquiry proceedings have been held properly and are valid, the question of considering the evidence adduced before it on merits, no longer survives. It is only when the Tribunal holds that the enquiry proceedings have not been properly held, that it derives jurisdiction to deal with the merits of the dispute and in such a case it has to consider the evidence adduced before it by the management and decide the matter on the basis of such evidence. (4) When a domestic enquiry has been held by the management and the management relies on the same, it is open to the latter to request the Tribunal to try the validity of the domestic enquiry as a preliminary issue and also ask for an opportunity to adduce evidence before the Tribunal, if the finding on the preliminary issue is against the management. However elaborate and cumbersome the procedure may be, under such circumstances, it is open to the Tribunal to deal, in the first instance, as a preliminary issue the validity of the domestic enquiry. If its finding on the preliminary issue is in favour of the management, then no additional evidence need be cited by the management. But, if the finding on the preliminary issue is against the management, the Tribunal will have to give the employer an opportunity to cite additional evidence and also give a similar opportunity to the employee to lead evidence contra, as the request to adduce evidence had been made by the management to the Tribunal during the course of the proceedings and before the trial has come to an end. When the preliminary issue is decided against the management and the latter leads evidence before the Tribunal, the position, under such circumstances, will be, that the management is deprived of the benefit of having the finding of the domestic Tribunal being accepted as prima-facie proof of the alleged misconduct. On the other hand, the management will have to prove, by adducing proper evidence, that the workman is guilty of misconduct and that the action taken by it is proper. It will not be just and fair either to the management or to the workman that the Tribunal should refuse to take evidence and thereby ask the management to make a further application, after holding a proper enquiry, and deprive the workman of the benefit of the Tribunal itself being satisfied, on evidence adduced before it, that he was or was not guilty of the alleged misconduct. (5) The management has got a right to attempt to sustain its order by adducing independent evidence before the Tribunal. But the management should avail itself of the said opportunity by making a suitable request to the Tribunal before the proceedings are closed. If no such opportunity has been availed of, or asked for by the management, before the proceedings are closed, the employer can make no grievance that the Tribunal did not provide such an opportunity. The Tribunal will have before it only the enquiry proceedings and it has to decide whether the proceedings have been held properly and the findings recorded therein are also proper.” 12. The Tribunal will have before it only the enquiry proceedings and it has to decide whether the proceedings have been held properly and the findings recorded therein are also proper.” 12. A similar view was taken in the case of State Bank of India vs. R.K. Jain and Others, (1972) 4 SCC 304 while considering the question as to whether the Management can produce evidence to prove the grounds for justification of discharge of the workman before the Tribunal and if so at what stage of proceedings. The observations made in the judgment in this regard are as follows: “35. It should be remembered that when an order of punishment by way of dismissal or termination of service is effected by the management, the issue that is referred is whether the management was justified in discharging and terminating the service of the workman concerned and whether the workman is entitled to any relief. In the present case, the actual issue that was referred for adjudication to the Industrial Tribunal has already been quoted in the earlier part of the judgment. There may be cases where an enquiry has been held preceding the order of termination or there may have been no enquiry at all. But the dispute that will be referred is not whether the domestic enquiry has been conducted properly or not by the management, but the larger question whether the order of termination, dismissal or the order imposing punishment on the workman concerned is justified. Under those circumstances it is the right of the workman to plead all infirmities in the domestic enquiry, if one has been held and also to attack the order on all grounds available to him in law and on facts. Similarly, the management has also a right to defend the action taken by it on the ground that a proper domestic enquiry has been held by it on the basis of which the order impugned has been passed. It is also open to the management to justify on facts that the order passed by it was proper. But the point to be noted is that the enquiry that is conducted by the Tribunal is a composite enquiry regarding the order which is under challenge. It is also open to the management to justify on facts that the order passed by it was proper. But the point to be noted is that the enquiry that is conducted by the Tribunal is a composite enquiry regarding the order which is under challenge. If the management defends its action solely on the basis that the domestic enquiry held by it is proper and valid and if the Tribunal hold against the management on that point, the management will fail. On the other hand, if the management relies not only on the validity of the domestic enquiry, but also adduces evidence before the Tribunal justifying its action, it is open to the Tribunal to accept the evidence adduced by the management and hold in its favour even if its finding is against the management regarding the validity of the domestic enquiry. It is essentially a matter for the management to decide about the stand that it proposes to take before the Tribunal. It may be emphasised, that it is the right of the management to sustain its order by adducing also independent evidence before the Tribunal. It is a right given to the management and it is for the management to avail itself of the said opportunity.” 13. The jurisdiction of an Industrial Tribunal while adjudicating disputes relating to dismissal or discharge was exhaustively considered in the case of The Workmen of M/s Firestone Tyre and Rubber Co. of India (P) Ltd. vs. The Management and Others, (1973) 1 SCC 813 and certain broad principles were laid down. The observations made in the judgment in this regard are being extracted below: “31. We have exhaustively referred to the various decisions of this Court, as they give a clear picture of the principles governing the jurisdiction of the Tribunals when adjudicating disputes relating to dismissal or discharge. 32. From those decisions, the following principles broadly emerge: (1) The right to take disciplinary action and to decide upon the quantum of punishment are mainly managerial functions, but if a dispute is referred to a Tribunal, the latter has power to see if action of the employer is justified. (2) Before imposing the punishment, an employer is expected to conduct a proper enquiry in accordance with the provisions of the Standing Orders, if applicable, and principles of natural justice. The enquiry should not be an empty formality. (2) Before imposing the punishment, an employer is expected to conduct a proper enquiry in accordance with the provisions of the Standing Orders, if applicable, and principles of natural justice. The enquiry should not be an empty formality. (3) When a proper enquiry has been held by an employer, and the finding of misconduct is a plausible conclusion flowing from the evidence, adduced at the said enquiry, the Tribunal has no jurisdiction to sit in judgment over the decision of the employer as an appellate body. The interference with the decision of the employer will be justified only when the findings arrived at in the enquiry are perverse or the management is guilty of victimisation, unfair labour practice or mala-fide. (4) Even if no enquiry has been held by an employer or if the enquiry held by him is found to be defective, the Tribunal in order to satisfy itself about the legality and validity of the order, had to give an opportunity to the employer and employee to adduce evidence before it. It is open to the employer to adduce evidence for the first time justifying his action, and it is open to the employee to adduce evidence contra. (5) The effect of an employer not holding an enquiry is that the Tribunal would not have to consider only whether there was a prima-facie case. On the other hand, the issue about the merits of the impugned order of dismissal or discharge is at large before the Tribunal and the latter, on the evidence adduced before it, has to decide for itself whether the misconduct alleged is proved. In such cases, the point about the exercise of managerial functions does not arise at all. A case of defective enquiry stands on the same footing as no enquiry. (6) The Tribunal gets jurisdiction to consider the evidence placed before it for the first time in justification of the action taken only, if no enquiry has been held or after the enquiry conducted by an employer is found to be defective. (7) It has never been recognised that the Tribunal should straightaway, without anything more, direct reinstatement of a dismissed or discharged employee, once it is found that no domestic enquiry has been held or the said enquiry is found to be defective. (7) It has never been recognised that the Tribunal should straightaway, without anything more, direct reinstatement of a dismissed or discharged employee, once it is found that no domestic enquiry has been held or the said enquiry is found to be defective. (8) An employer, who wants to avail himself of the opportunity of adducing evidence for the first time before the Tribunal to justify his action, should ask for it at the appropriate stage. If such an opportunity is asked for, the Tribunal has no power to refuse. The giving of an opportunity to an employer to adduce evidence for the first time before the Tribunal is in the interest of both the management and the employee and to enable the Tribunal itself to be satisfied about the alleged misconduct. (9) Once the misconduct is proved either in the enquiry conducted by an employer or by the evidence placed before a Tribunal for the first time, punishment imposed cannot be interfered with by the Tribunal except in cases where the punishment is so harsh as to suggest victimisation. (10) In a particular case, after setting aside the order of dismissal, whether a workman should be reinstated or paid compensation is, as held by this Court in The Management of Panitole Tea Estate vs. Workmen, (1971) 1 SCC 742 within the judicial decision of a Labour Court or Tribunal.” 14. The consequences which would follow in a case where the domestic enquiry was found to be defective for violation of principles of natural justice and as to whether in such a case a duty would be cast on the Labour Court to give an opportunity to the employer to adduce evidence afresh and whether the failure to do so would vitiate the award was taken up for consideration in the case of The Cooper Engineering Limited vs. Shri P.P. Mundhe, (1975) 2 SCC 661 . The observations made in the judgment are as follows: “22. We are, therefore, clearly of opinion that when a case of dismissal or discharge of an employee is referred for industrial adjudication the Labour Court should first decide as a preliminary issue whether the domestic enquiry has violated the principles of natural justice. When there is no domestic enquiry or defective enquiry is admitted by the employer, there will be no difficulty. When there is no domestic enquiry or defective enquiry is admitted by the employer, there will be no difficulty. But when the matter is in controversy between the parties that question must be decided as a preliminary issue. On that decision being pronounced it will be for the management to decide whether it will adduce any evidence before the labour court. If it chooses not to adduce any evidence, it will not be thereafter permissible in any proceeding to raise the issue. We should also make it clear that there will be no justification for any party to stall the final adjudication of the dispute by the Labour Court by questioning its decision with regard to the preliminary issue when the matter, if worthy, can be agitated even after the final award. It will be also legitimate for the High Court to refuse to intervene at this stage. We are making these observations in our anxiety that there is no undue delay in industrial adjudication.” 15. The question as to whether the Labour Court is duty bound to afford an opportunity to the employer to lead evidence and to prove the charge against the workman on merits in a case where the domestic enquiry is held to be illegal and improper fell for consideration in the case of Shankar Chakravarti vs. Britannia Biscuit Co. Ltd. and Another, (1979) 3 SCC 371 and while answering the aforesaid question it was held that it is for the employer to ask for such opportunity to lead evidence to prove the charge of misconduct and once such prayer is made in any form i.e. orally or by application or in the pleading the same cannot be denied to the employer. The observations made in the judgment in this regard are being extracted below: “35....It is both the right and obligation of the employer, if it so chooses, to adduce additional evidence to substantiate the charges of misconduct. It is for the employer to avail of such opportunity by a specific pleading or by specific request....” 16. The question with regard to the necessity of framing a preliminary issue to decide validity of domestic enquiry again came up for consideration in the case of Kurukshetra University vs. Prithvi Singh, (2018) 4 SCC 483 and after referring to the earlier judgments in the case of Indian Iron and Steel Co. The question with regard to the necessity of framing a preliminary issue to decide validity of domestic enquiry again came up for consideration in the case of Kurukshetra University vs. Prithvi Singh, (2018) 4 SCC 483 and after referring to the earlier judgments in the case of Indian Iron and Steel Co. Ltd. vs. Workmen, AIR 1958 SC 130 and Shankar Chakravarti vs. Britannia Biscuit Co. Ltd. (supra) it was observed that in the facts of the case the Labour Court committed an error in not framing a preliminary issue for deciding the legality of the domestic enquiry and having found fault in the domestic enquiry committed another error when it did not allow the employer to lead independent evidence to prove the misconduct/charge on merits and straightway proceeded to hold that it was a case of illegal retrenchment. The observations made in the aforementioned judgment in this regard are as follows: “12. The question as to what are the powers of the Labour Court and how it should proceed to decide the legality and correctness of the termination order of a workman under the Labour Laws in reference proceedings and what are the rights of the employer while defending the termination order in the Labour Court remains no more res integra and is settled by series of decisions of this Court beginning from Indian Iron and Steel Co. Ltd. vs. Workmen till Shankar Chakravarti vs. Britannia Biscuit Co. Ltd. and Shankar Chakravarti vs. Britannia Biscuit Co. Ltd. (1979) 3 SCC 371 and also thereafter in several decisions as mentioned below. 13. In between this period, this Court in several leading cases examined the aforesaid questions. However, in Shankar Case (1979) 3 SCC 371 , this Court took note of entire case law laid down by this Court in all previous cases and reiterated the legal position in detail. xxx xxx xxx 20. We are constrained to observe that first, the Labour Court committed an error in not framing a “preliminary issue” for deciding the legality of domestic enquiry and second, having found fault in the domestic enquiry committed another error when it did not allow the appellant to lead independent evidence to prove the misconduct/charge on merits and straightaway proceeded to hold that it was a case of illegal retrenchment and hence the respondent's termination is bad in law.” 17. The aforementioned proposition of law has been reiterated in the case of M.L. Singla vs. Punjab National Bank and Another, (2018) 18 SCC 21 and it has been stated that it is obligatory for the Labour Court to decide the validity/legality of the domestic enquiry and in case it is held that the domestic enquiry was illegal because it had been conducted in violation of the principles of natural justice the employer ought to be granted opportunity to lead evidence and prove the case before the Labour Court. The observations in the aforesaid judgment made in this regard after examining the earlier decisions in the case of Bharat Sugar Mills Ltd. vs. Jai Singh, (1962) 3 SCR 684 , Management of Ritz Theatre (P) Ltd. Delhi vs. Workmen (supra), Workmen of the Motipur Sugar Factory Pvt. Ltd. vs. The Motipur Sugar Factory Pvt. Ltd. (supra), SBI vs. R.K. Jain, (supra) Delhi Cloth and General Mills Co. vs. Ludh Budh Singh, (supra), Workmen of M/s Firestone Tyre and Rubber Co. of India (P) Ltd. vs. Management and Others, (supra) Cooper Engineering Limited vs. P.P. Mundhe (supra) and Shankar Chakravarti vs. Britannia Biscuit Co. Ltd. (supra) are as follows: “13. It is necessary to examine the legality and correctness of the award of the Labour Court in the first instance and then the impugned order. 14. When we examine the award in the light of detailed facts set out above, we find that the Labour Court committed more than one jurisdictional error in answering the reference. 15. The first error was that it failed to decide the validity and legality of the domestic enquiry. Since the dismissal order was based on the domestic enquiry, it was obligatory upon the Labour Court to first decide the question as a preliminary issue as to whether the domestic enquiry was legal and proper. 16. Depending upon the answer to this question, the Labour Court should have proceeded further to decide the next question. xxx xxx xxx 20. If the Labour Court had come to a conclusion that the domestic enquiry is illegal because it was conducted in violation of the principles of natural justice thereby causing prejudice to the rights of the employee, Respondent-1 Bank was under legal obligation to prove the misconduct (charges) alleged against the appellant (employee) before the Labour Court provided he had sought such opportunity to prove the charges on merits. 21. The Labour Court was then under legal obligation to give such opportunity and then decide the question as to whether Respondent-1 Bank was able to prove the charges against the appellant on merits or not. xxx xxx xxx 25. Assuming that the Labour Court had the jurisdiction to direct the parties in the first instance itself to adduce evidence on merits in support of the charges yet, in our opinion, it was obligatory upon the Labour Court to first frame the preliminary issue on the question of legality and validity of the domestic enquiry and confine its discussion only for examining the legality and propriety of the enquiry proceedings. 26. Depending upon the finding on the preliminary issue on the legality of the enquiry proceedings, the Labour Court should have proceeded to decide the next questions. The Labour Court while deciding the preliminary issue could only rely upon the evidence, which was relevant for deciding the issue of legality of enquiry proceedings but not beyond it. 27. In other words, the Labour Court failed to see that it would have assumed the jurisdiction to examine the charges on the merits only after the domestic enquiry had been held illegal and secondly, the employer had sought permission to adduce evidence on merits to prove the charges and on permission being granted, he had led the evidence. xxx xxx xxx 35. The law on this subject was examined by this Court in several decisions beginning from Bharat Sugar Mills Ltd. vs. Jai Singh, (1962) 3 SCR 684 , Ritz Theatre (P) Ltd. vs. Workmen, (1963) 3 SCR 461 , Workmen vs. Motipur Sugar Factory (P) Ltd. (1965) 3 SCR 588 , SBI vs. R.K. Jain, (1972) 4 SCC 304 , Delhi Cloth and General Mills Co. vs. Ludh Budh Singh, (1972) 1 SCC 595 , Workmen vs. Firestone Tyre and Rubber Co. of India (P) Ltd. (1973) 1 SCC 813 and Cooper Engg. Ltd. vs. P.P. Mundhe, (1975) 2 SCC 661 . 36. All the aforementioned decisions were examined in detail by a Bench of three Judges of this Court in Shankar Chakravarti vs. Britannia Biscuit Co. Ltd. (1979) 3 SCC 371 . 37. of India (P) Ltd. (1973) 1 SCC 813 and Cooper Engg. Ltd. vs. P.P. Mundhe, (1975) 2 SCC 661 . 36. All the aforementioned decisions were examined in detail by a Bench of three Judges of this Court in Shankar Chakravarti vs. Britannia Biscuit Co. Ltd. (1979) 3 SCC 371 . 37. Though in Shankar Chakravarti Case (1979) 3 SCC 371 , the question was when the domestic enquiry is held illegal and improper by the Labour Court, whether the Labour Court is duty bound to afford an opportunity to the employer to lead evidence to prove the charge against the workman on merits before the Labour Court. 38. This Court while answering the aforesaid question in Shankar Chakravarti Case (1979) 3 SCC 371 held that it is for the employer to ask for such opportunity to lead evidence to prove the charge of misconduct and once such prayer is made in any form i.e. orally or by application or in the pleading, the same cannot be denied to the employer. It has to be granted to enable him to prove the misconduct. This Court further held that no duty is cast upon the Court to offer such opportunity to the employer suo motu, if he does not ask for it. In other words, he has to ask for from the Court by any of the three modes mentioned above.” 18. From the forgoing discussion it follows that it is obligatory upon the Labour Court to first decide the preliminary issue as to the legality of the domestic enquiry and in case it proceeds to hold the domestic enquiry to be not fair and proper it would be open to the employer to ask for such opportunity to lead evidence to prove the charge of misconduct and once such prayer is made either orally or by application or in the pleading, the same is to be granted to enable the employer to prove the misconduct. It has been consistently held that the Management would have a right to defend its action solely on the basis of the domestic enquiry by demonstrating it to be fair and proper, or taking the other course of relying firstly on the validity of the domestic enquiry and alternatively and without prejudice to the plea that the enquiry is fair and proper also seeking to adduce evidence before the Tribunal to justify its action. 19. 19. In the instant case, the records of the present case indicate that in the written statement filed by the petitioner-employer before the Labour Court it was specifically pleaded that in case the Labour Court finds any defect in the enquiry, the management be allowed to prove the case before the Labour Court and to lead the evidence for the said purpose. 20. In view of the specific pleading having been made by the petitioner-employer the Labour Court before proceeding to hold the termination to be illegal and invalid ought to have granted an opportunity to the petitioner-employer to lead evidence and prove its case and the Labour Court could not have straightaway proceeded to hold the termination to be illegal and invalid. 21. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent no. 3 has not been able to dispute the aforementioned legal position and has fairly submitted that in order to expedite the proceedings the matter be remanded to the Labour Court to proceed afresh after giving due opportunity to the petitioner-employer to lead evidence and prove the charge. 22. In the light of the foregoing discussion the award of the Labour Court is held to be legally unsustainable and is accordingly set aside and the matter is remanded to the Labour Court with an observation that the Labour Court would afford an opportunity, as sought by the employer in its written statement, to lead evidence to prove the misconduct, and thereafter proceed to decide the issue with regard to the legality/validity of the termination of the services of the respondent no. 3-workman, in terms of the reference made before it. 23. Counsel for the parties have jointly submitted that they would appear before the Labour Court and would not seek any unnecessary adjournment. 24. Having regard to the fact that the dispute had been referred for adjudication more than a decade ago it is expected that the Labour Court would proceed with the matter and endeavour to conclude the proceedings expeditiously, preferably within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of the order of this Court. 25. The writ petition is allowed to the extent indicated hereinabove.