JUDGMENT (Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records pertaining to the impugned Award in I.D.No.827 of 2001 dated 06.08.2012 passed by the first respondent holding that the charges leveled against the petitioner were proved and that the dismissal was justified and declining to grant him any relief quash the same and consequently, direct the second respondent to reinstate him with continuity of service, back wages and all other attendant benefits with award costs.) 1. The charge against the petitioner, who was employed as a Driver in the second respondent/Corporation is that, on 06.11.1996 an accident took place owing to his negligence and the victim died on the spot. During the course of inquiry, oral and documentary evidences were let in before the Inquiry Officer and based on the proven charges, the petitioner was dismissed from service through an order dated 10.06.1997. The appeal against the dismissal order was also rejected. 2. Before the Labour Court, when the petitioner raised an Industrial Dispute under Section 2-A(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 [hereinafter referred to as “ID Act”], the Labour Court had found that the domestic inquiry conducted by the second respondent/Corporation was fair and proper, in the following manner:- “11) The enquiry proceedings was marked as Ex.M4, it is seen from this document that the petitioner participated in the enquiry and M.W1 was examined in the presence of the petitioner on 15.2.97 and the statement of M.W1 Natarajan was recorded on that day and on behalf of the management, 9 documents were marked. Since the petitioner had requested the enquiry officer to adjourn the enquiry to some other date, the same was adjourned to 1.3.1997 for the cross examination of M.W1 and the copies of documents were given to the Petitioner for an effective cross examination. On 1.3.97 M.W1 was cross examined by the petitioner in the lengthy manner and the evidence of the Petitioner was closed. The petitioner also requested the enquiry officer to treat the explanation given by the petitioner to the management as his statement and the management was permitted to cross examine the petitioner and the same was done by the management. Since, the petitioner reported that there is no further evidence, the enquiry was closed. The petitioner also requested the enquiry officer to treat the explanation given by the petitioner to the management as his statement and the management was permitted to cross examine the petitioner and the same was done by the management. Since, the petitioner reported that there is no further evidence, the enquiry was closed. So, it is seen from the proceedings of the enquiry that reasonable opportunity was given to the petitioner to cross examine the management witness and he was also examined as witness and there is no violation of the principles of natural justice. So, this Court is of the considered opinion that the domestic enquiry conducted by the respondent management was fair and proper and the same is in accordance with law.” 3. However, the Labour Court had let in further oral evidence before it and examined W.W.1 on the part of the petitioner and M.W.1 and M.W.2 for the Management. The documentary evidences were also marked on both sides. In general, on the basis of the evidence before it and in particular, on the basis of crossexamination of M.W.1 and M.W.2 before the Labour Court, the Award came to be passed, by holding that the charge of misconduct against the petitioner was established by the Management and the punishment awarded to the petitioner by the Management was not disproportionate to the charge of misconduct. Accordingly, the Industrial Dispute came to be dismissed. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner predominantly raised a ground stating that, when the Labour Court had held the domestic inquiry to be fair and proper, the Labour Court cannot rely upon the evidence led before it and reject the claim of the petitioner. 5. The learned counsel for the second respondent/Transport Corporation placed reliance on the observations made by the Labour Court in the Award and submitted that, in the ultimate paragraph of the Award, the Labour Court had also taken into account the findings of the Inquiry Officer and therefore, has come to the conclusion that the charges against the petitioner were proved. 6. I have given my careful consideration to the submissions made by the respective counsels. 7. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in a batch of cases in The Workmen of M/s.Firestone Tyre And Rubber Co. 6. I have given my careful consideration to the submissions made by the respective counsels. 7. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in a batch of cases in The Workmen of M/s.Firestone Tyre And Rubber Co. of India (Pvt.) Ltd., V. The Management And Others & etc., reported in 1973 (1) SCC 813 , had held that after introduction of Section 11A of the ID Act, the Tribunal would be well within its power to deal with the validity of the domestic inquiry, if taken up as a preliminary issue. While holding so, it was held that if such domestic inquiry was held as fair and proper, there will be no occasion for additional evidence being cited by the Management. However, if the findings is against the Management, the Tribunal will have to give the employer an opportunity to cite additional evidence justifying its action. 8. By placing reliance on the decision of the M/s. Firestone tyre and Rubber Company's case (supra), a Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court in K.Damodaran V. Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Vellore & Another reported in 2007 (1) LLN 831, had held that the procedure adopted by the Labour Court in allowing the parties to lead evidence even after holding the inquiry to be valid and proper, is illegal. The relevant portion of the order reads as follows:- “8. If these principles are kept in mind, then the second respondent Labour Court would not have committed grave error in allowing the parties to lead evidence inspite of a joint memo having been filed by both parties stating that they are not questioning the validity of the enquiry. Then the Labour Court, under these circumstances, ought to have confined itself only to decide the finding rendered by the employer as it is just and proper and if the misconduct is proved still, shall decide the question of quantum of punishment imposed on the workman. On the contrary, the Labour Court held that denial of subsistence allowance will vitiate the enquiry. This was inspite of the earlier docket order made by the predecessor of the second respondent on 30.5.2000. This conduct of the Labour Court is wholly unwarranted and the Labour Court cannot go behind the endorsement made by the parties. On the contrary, the Labour Court held that denial of subsistence allowance will vitiate the enquiry. This was inspite of the earlier docket order made by the predecessor of the second respondent on 30.5.2000. This conduct of the Labour Court is wholly unwarranted and the Labour Court cannot go behind the endorsement made by the parties. However, when the matter was brought before the learned Judge by both parties, they have not brought to the notice of this Court the decision of the Supreme Court interpreting Section 11A of the I.D. Act which led the learned Judge to remand the matter only on the question of proportionality of the punishment to be decided by the Labour Court thereby restricting the power of the labour Court to go into the findings rendered by the employer in the domestic enquiry conducted by the first respondent Society. We cannot fetter the right of the labour Court to go into the findings rendered by the employer and to come to the conclusion in one way or the other and thereafter, decide the question of penalty to be imposed on the workman. 9. Even while we are upholding the order of the learned single Judge in ordering remand of the I.D., we are only removing the fetter imposed on the Labour Court to go into the findings rendered by the employer and to find out whether the guilt or otherwise of the appellant has been established or not. However, we will have to make it clear that the Labour Court has committed grievous error with reference to allowing the parties to lead evidence even after holding that the enquiry has been held to be valid and proper and the Management not seeking any opportunity to lead fresh evidence. This is not warranted in terms of the proviso to Section 11A of the I.D. Act.” 9. This proposition has been reiterated in various decisions of this Court. Thus, when such a ratio is adopted to the present facts of the case, the Labour Court, having found that the domestic inquiry was fair and proper, had placed reliance upon the additional evidence led before it and by placing reliance on the cross examination of M.W.1 and M.W.2, the Labour Court, had come to the conclusion that the charges of misconduct has been established by the Management, which is totally in contravention of the aforesaid legal propositions. Consequently, the Award of the Labour Court, cannot be sustained. However, this Court is of the view that the matter could be remitted back to the Labour Court for fresh consideration, on the basis of the materials on record before the Inquiry Officer. 10. In the result, the impugned Award passed by the learned II Additional Judge, Labour Court, Chennai in I.D.No.827 of 2001 dated 06.08.2012, is quashed and the matter is remanded back to the II Additional Labour Court, Chennai for reconsideration. The Labour Court shall commence the proceedings from the stage of final arguments, after affording due opportunity to both parties to put forth their arguments both oral and written arguments and shall pass an Award in accordance with the materials placed on record in the domestic inquiry, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The Writ Petition stands allowed accordingly. There shall be no orders as to costs.