was not held, both the Labour Court as well as Writ Court have fallen into error by expressing the opinion that the same is just and fair. The learned counsel would submit that the learned Single Judge has not given reasons for concurring with the view expressed by the Labour Court but has only observed that there is no perversity of approach. The learned counsel would propone with emphasis that when adequate opportunity is not afforded, the entire proceeding is vitiated and that also makes the award sensitively unsustainable. It is urged by him that the Labour Court has failed to appreciate the import and purport of Section 11A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for brevity „the Act‟) and erroneously expressed the view that the punishment imposed is not disproportionate. To buttress the aforesaid submissions, the learned counsel has commended us to the decisions rendered in Phulbari Tea Estate v. Its Workmen , AIR 1959 SC 1111, Ramanand v. Divisional Mechanical Engineer, Northern Railway, Bikaner and another, AIR 1962 Rajasthan 265 , and Sur Enamel and Stamping Works (P) Ltd. v. Their Workmen , AIR 1963 SC 1914 .
