Furthermore, it was misconception of law to say that for the said purpose, a separate application ought to have been made by the management. While no such specific provision is pointed out by the learned Counsel for the workman, the procedure for giving an opportunity to justify the termination or any penalty imposed by employer on the workman, has emerged not from the specific provision under the labour laws, but by judicial pronouncements noted in paragraph 5.3 above. 11.4. It is clear from the above judicial pronouncements that it would be permissible for the employer to justify its action; punitive or otherwise by leading evidence for the first time before the Labour Court at any stage before the conclusion of the matter. None of the authorities require a separate written permission for the purpose. It will be thus sufficient for the employer to plead and urge for such permission. In the instant case, not only the employer pleaded and urged for such permission, but in fact, adduced evidence; documentary as well as oral, without any objection from any quarters and it is only at the final pronouncement that the Courts below held that in absence of separate application and in absence of the averments in the written statement, the evidence adduced was not worth consideration. In the opinion of this Court, such technical approach by the Courts below cannot be countenanced. 11.5. The Labour Court on perusal of the oral and documentary evidence adduced in support of the claim of loss of confidence by the employer, was convinced that the misconduct was established. It, however, discarded the evidence only on the grounds afore-stated and the appellate Court discarded it with the findings that the evidence adduced was not in accordance with the procedure laid under the Evidence Act. This approach was contrary to the settled law by judicial pronouncements noted in paragraph 5.2 above. 11.5.1. Thus, it is a settled legal position that the procedure laid down under the Evidence Act, may not strictly apply to the proceedings under the Labour Laws and it will be justified for the Court to draw inference on preponderance of probabilities on the facts brought to its notice and that exactly was done by the Labour Court. Pertinently, the workman did not even challenge the factual aspects narrated by witnesses in the oral testimony; nor did he question the documents adduced in evidence before the Labour
