As per case facts, a group of petitioners, employees of the respondent company, were terminated following an industrial dispute and a strike declared illegal by the Industrial Court. They appealed ... the Labour Court's order, which had upheld the domestic inquiry as legal, fair, and proper. Their primary grievance was the alleged lack of sufficient opportunity to respond to the inquiry findings before their quick termination, along with claims of selective action and that their strike began before formal conciliation. The question arose whether the domestic inquiry conducted by the employer was vitiated by a breach of natural justice due to the short time between the finding report and the termination order, the alleged lack of adequate opportunity for the petitioners to be heard, and the overall fairness of the process regarding their participation in an illegal strike. Finally, the High Court dismissed the petitions, holding that the petitioners failed to demonstrate any real prejudice caused by the swift termination after the inquiry report, as they had ample opportunity during the inquiry proceedings to defend themselves, cross-examine witnesses, and present their statements. The court further clarified that selective action against active union members involved in misconduct was not arbitrary, and the continuation of the strike after conciliation proceedings were admitted and after it was declared illegal constituted clear misconduct. Consequently, the Labour Court's finding that the domestic inquiry was legal, fair, and proper, and its conclusions were upheld, as no serious procedural defect or perversity was found.