JUDGMENT : Manoj Kumar Gupta, J. The instant petition is directed against the award dated 12.12.2011 passed by Industrial Tribunal (3) U.P., Kanpur on a reference made to it under the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The reference was whether the termination of service of Babu Ram, employee of the petitioner-Corporation on 28.11.2002 was proper and valid and if not, the relief to which the workman was entitled to. The reference has been answered in favour of the workman. As the workman had died on 17.10.2014 i.e., during pendency of the proceedings, therefore, he has been given relief of continuity in service till 17.10.2004 after holding the removal order dated 28.11.2002 to be illegal. The petitioner-Corporation has been directed to pay full back wages till the date of death of the workman. 2. The facts in brief are that Babu Ram (now represented by his son, respondent No.3), was working as driver with the petitioner-Corporation. While he was driving Bus No.UP-75A/3279 belonging to the petitioner-Corporation, it met with an accident on Agra-Tundla Highway. In the said accident, one Awdhesh Kumar Yadav died. In a claim petition filed before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, by heirs and legal representatives of Awdhesh Kumar Yadav bearing No.108 of 1996 against the petitioner-Corporation, in which Babu Ram was arrayed as respondent No.2, it was held that the accident was an outcome of rash and negligent driving of the bus by Babu Ram and not any contributory negligence of the deceased. In sequel thereto, the petitioner-Corporation initiated departmental enquiry against Babu Ram. Babu Ram participated in the disciplinary enquiry. Ultimately, the enquiry officer submitted his report opining that Babu Ram was not responsible for the accident. The Regional Manager, who is the disciplinary authority, did not agree with the enquiry officer. He issued a show cause notice dated 30.1.2002 to Babu Ram stating his disagreement with the report of the enquiry officer while placing reliance on the judgement of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal. He was required to show cause as to why the loss caused to the Corporation as a result of rash and negligent driving be not recovered from him and why his services be not dispensed with. Babu Ram replied to the said notice on 27.5.2002. He was required to show cause as to why the loss caused to the Corporation as a result of rash and negligent driving be not recovered from him and why his services be not dispensed with. Babu Ram replied to the said notice on 27.5.2002. The Regional Manager after considering the enquiry report and the reply furnished by Babu Ram to the show cause notice and other evidence held Babu Ram guilty of the charges framed against him and directed for recovery of a sum of Rs.2,34,000/-from him and also for his removal from service. Babu Ram being aggrieved thereby sought reference of the dispute to the Industrial Tribunal and in pursuance whereof the impugned award was passed. 3. The Tribunal has held that the departmental enquiry held by the Corporation was in violation of principles of natural justice in as much as the show cause notice issued to Babu Ram disagreeing with the recommendations made by the enquiry officer does not contain any reason. According to the Tribunal, the reliance placed upon the award of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal in disagreeing with the report of the enquiry officer was not a valid reason, as the said award was very much in existence when the enquiry officer submitted his report. The show cause notice should have contained other reasons. It has further been held that before inflicting major punishment, Babu Ram should have been given opportunity to submit his defence in writing and lead oral evidence but which was not granted to him and consequently there was violation of principles of natural justice. The order of removal, was therefore, held to be illegal and the reference answered in favour of the workman. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the findings recorded by the Tribunal are wholly illegal and perverse. It is pointed out that the show cause notice issued to Babu Ram on 30.1.2002 by the disciplinary authority contained specific reason to the effect that the court in its award found him guilty of rash and negligent driving. It is submitted that the finding recorded by the Tribunal that the show cause notice does not disclose any reason for disagreement with the opinion of the enquiry officer is thus wholly perverse and against the record. It is submitted that the finding recorded by the Tribunal that the show cause notice does not disclose any reason for disagreement with the opinion of the enquiry officer is thus wholly perverse and against the record. His further submission is that at the stage of second show cause notice against proposed punishment, there is no requirement of permitting the delinquent to lead oral evidence. Thus the view taken by the Tribunal is manifestly illegal. It is also urged that the petitioner-Corporation in paragraph 17 of the written statement reserved its right to prove charges before the Tribunal in case any fault is found with the departmental enquiry. Even if disciplinary enquiry held by the Corporation was discarded by the Tribunal, it ought to have given opportunity to the petitioners to lead evidence to prove the charge but in great haste it proceeded to pass the impugned award without affording such opportunity. 5. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent No.3 submitted that the departmental enquiry was initiated by the petitioner-Corporation almost three years after the accident took place. He further submitted that the enquiry officer had absolved Babu Ram of the charges levelled against him and consequently order of removal passed by the disciplinary authority was wholly illegal. He further submitted that the findings recorded by the Tribunal in relation to violation of principles of natural justice are findings of facts. 6. I have considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 7. The disciplinary authority, after receipt of enquiry report given by the enquiry officer admittedly issued show cause notice dated 30.1.2002 to Babu Ram. The show cause notice specifically records that he is in disagreement with the opinion of the enquiry officer. The reason being that the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal in its award had found him guilty of rash and negligent driving. Babu Ram was also called upon to show cause as to why he should not be removed from service and why the loss caused to the Corporation to the tune of Rs.2,34,000/-be not recovered from him. It was followed by another notice dated 6.5.2002 in which also his explanation against proposed punishment was called for. The notice dated 30.1.2002 specifically contains reason for not agreeing with the recommendation made by the enquiry officer. It was followed by another notice dated 6.5.2002 in which also his explanation against proposed punishment was called for. The notice dated 30.1.2002 specifically contains reason for not agreeing with the recommendation made by the enquiry officer. The delinquent was thus fully aware of the fact that the disciplinary authority was not in agreement with the recommendation made by the enquiry officer and also the reason for disagreement. This also is the object of issuance of show cause notice when the disciplinary authority is in disagreement with the recommendation made by the enquiry officer. Such requirement stands fully achieved by the show cause notice issued to Babu Ram. The mere fact that the material, i.e. the award of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal relying on which the disciplinary officer had disagreed with the recommendation made by the enquiry officer, was also available at the stage enquiry officer submitted his report, would not preclude the disciplinary authority to place reliance on such material. Moreover, there is no legal requirement that at the stage of second show cause notice against proposed punishment, any fresh enquiry be held by permitting the delinquent to lead oral evidence, as observed by the Tribunal. 8. Thus on both scores, I am of the considered onion that the findings returned by the Tribunal in relation to violation of principles of natural justice are not sustainable in law. Moreover, even if the disciplinary enquiry was found to be vitiated on the ground of violation of principles of natural justice, it is now well settled that where the employer has reserved its right to prove the charges before the Tribunal, the Tribunal is bound to give opportunity to the employer to lead evidence. The legal position in this regard was settled by the Supreme Court in Delhi Cloth & General Mills Co. v. Ludh Budh Singh, 1972 (3) SCR 29 by holding as follows : “(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. 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. (6) If the employer relies only on the domestic enquiry and does not simultaneously lead additional evidence or ask for an opportunity during the pendency of the proceedings to adduce such evidence, the duty of the Tribunal is only to consider the validity of the domestic enquiry as well as the finding recorded therein and decide the matter. If the Tribunal decides that the domestic enquiry has not been held properly, it is not its function to invite suo motu the employer to adduce evidence before it to justify the action taken by it.” 9. The above principles of law was reiterated with approval in Shankar Chakravarti v. Britannia Biscuit Co. Ltd. and Another, AIR 1979 SC 1653 by a three Judges' Bench of the Supreme Court in following words :- “…..After an exhaustive review of the decisions bearing on the question and affirming the ratio in R.K. Jain’s case (1972 Lab IC 13) this Court extracted the emerging principles from the review of decisions. Propositions 4, 5 and 6 would be relevant for the present discussion.” 10. In a recent judgement of the Supreme Court in Kurukshetra University v. Prithvi Singh, AIR 2018 SC 973 , the Supreme Court did not approve the approach of the Labour Court where it proceeded to answer the reference in favour of the workman, after holding that the departmental enquiry stood vitiated on account of violation of principles of natural justice without granting the employer opportunity to lead evidence to prove the charges. The relevant observations made by the Supreme Court are extracted below :- “24. 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 inquiry 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 respondents’ termination is bad in law. 31. 31. The Labour Court will now afford the appellant (employer) an opportunity to lead evidence to prove the misconduct alleged by them in the written statement against the respondent and depending upon the findings, which the Labour Court would record on the issue of misconduct, the issue of termination would be decided in the light of what we have observed supra.” 11. In the instant case also, albeit the petitioner-Corporation having reserved its right to prove the charges by leading evidence before the Tribunal in case the disciplinary enquiry was found to be vitiated, no such opportunity was given to the petitioner-Corporation, but in great haste it straight away proceeded to allow the reference resulting in manifest error of law. 12. For all the reasons mentioned above, the impugned award cannot be sustained and is hereby quashed. The matter is remitted back to the Tribunal for deciding the same afresh in accordance with law in the light of the observations made above. 13. The petition stands allowed accordingly.