1 S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.6272/2009 Bhanwar Singh vs Manager, M/s. Raj. Spinning & Weaving Mills Ltd., & Anr. DATE OF ORDER: 8.7.2009 HON'BLE MR. PRAKASH TATIA, J. Mr. DK Parihar, for the petitioner. <><><> Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. The petitioner-employee raised a dispute under Section 10 (1) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the Act of 1947). Upon which it was referred to the labour court, Bhilwara. The petitioner's contention is that he was working in the employment of the respondent on 3rd Sept., 1995 and he continued to work upto 8th June, 2005 and he as holding ring frame machine on the relevant date of June, 2005 and at that time at about 9.00 in the morning Sh. PK Singh and Supervisor Sh. Yadav came and found that machines are not run properly. He alleged that he was beaten by Sh. Singh and he was locked up in the room for one hour and then he was sent out of the industrial unit. The petitioner tried to lodge FIR and went to the police station, but the police did not register the case and 2 petitioner submitted criminal complaint in the court and criminal case was registered. Thereafter,the petitioner was not allowed to join the duty and he was served with the charge-sheet dated 16th June, 2005 which was received by him on 18th June, 2005 and according to him, he sent the reply and inquiry officer was appointed and, thereafter, ultimately, he was removed from the services vide order dated 28th Sept., 2005. The petitioner's contention in the claim was only that Section 25F of the Act of 1947 has been violated. However, the tribunal vide order date 15th Oct., 2008 held that the domestic inquiry conducted by the employer was valid and legal and then matter was again considered in detailed in view of the submissions made by both the parties. Each and every aspect of the matter has been considered by the labour court in detail and, thereafter, it has been held that removal of the petitioner from the services vide order dated 28th Sept., 2005 is legal and valid. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that once the domestic inquiry was held to be legal and valid then as sub-rule (5) of Rule 10B, the petitioner should be given permission to lead evidence and that has not been done in this case and, therefore, the order of the labour court deserves to be set aside as no de novo opportunity was given to the petitioner. 3 It appears from the detailed order passed by the labour court that the petitioner himself took part in the proceedings and his case was considered by the department in detail and in domestic inquiry he was found guilty land in view of the above reasons, I do not find any illegality in the impugned order passed by the labour court. Hence, the writ petition of the petitioner is dismissed. (PRAKASH TATIA), J. c.p.goyal/-