1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR Letters Patent Appeal No.197 of 2007 In Writ Petition No.397 of 2007 (D) (Subhash Nageshrao Jambholkar v. The Mah. State Road Transport Corporation, through Divisional Controller and another) -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-- Office Notes, Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders or directions : Court's or Judge's orders and Registrar's orders. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Shri N.R. Saboo, Advocate for Appellant. Shri S.C. Mehadia, Advocate for Respondent No.1. CORAM : K.J. Rohee & R.C. Chavan, JJ. DATE : 8th April, 2008 1. Heard the learned counsel for parties. 2. After holding enquiry against the appellant, who was serving as Conductor with respondent No.1 – Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation, in respect of the misconduct dated 4-10-1997, by order dated 23-11-2004, he was dismissed from service. The appellant challenged his dismissal before the Labour Court. By order dated 6-12-2005, the Labour Court held that the enquiry against the appellant was fair and proper but the findings recorded by the Enquiry Officer were perverse and as such the enquiry itself stood vitiated. Accordingly the Labour Court quashed the enquiry and directed the respondent-MSRTC to prove the misconduct of the appellant by adducing fresh evidence. It seems that before the Labour Court, the respondents examined the Enquiry Officer after the appellant adduced his evidence. After considering the evidence adduced by the 2 parties, the Labour Court by order dated 5-4-2006 allowed the complaint by holding that the respondents failed to prove the misconduct of the appellant before the Court. Accordingly the Labour Court set aside the order of dismissal of the appellant and directed his reinstatement with full back wages and continuity in service. In revision preferred by the respondent- MSRTC, the Industrial Court by order dated 27-11-2006 set aside the order of the Labour Court and remanded the matter back to the Labour Court to decide it afresh by giving full opportunity to both the parties to lead their respective evidence and thereafter to dispose of the complaint according to law. The appellant/complainant challenged the order of the Industrial Court before the learned Single Judge by filing writ petition. However, by order dated 11-7-2007, the learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition by directing the Labour Court to decide the complaint within four months. 3. It may be seem that it is the specific finding of the Labour Court that the enquiry conducted by the MSRTC against the complainant was fair and proper and only the findings recorded by the Enquiry Officer were perverse. In view of this specific finding, the MSRTC adduced the evidence of the Enquiry Officer only, which in the circumstances of the case was quite correct. As such there was no reason for the Industrial Court to remand the matter particularly because the enquiry was found to be fair and proper. In fact the Industrial Court should have proceeded with the revision to decide the same on merits. Instead it simply remanded the matter back to the Labour Court for adducing evidence. We find it difficult to uphold this order of remand. We, therefore, pass the following order : 4. The Letters Patent Appeal is allowed. The orders passed by the Industrial Court and the learned Single Judge are quashed and set aside. The Industrial Court is directed to decide the revision on merits. 5. At this stage, the learned counsel for the respondent-MSRTC 3 urged that the evidence adduced by the complainant before the Labour Court should not be considered because the MSRTC was not given proper opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses of the complainant. We are not impressed by the submission, because the record reveals that opportunity was granted to the MSRTC and even the witnesses of the complainant were cross-examined on behalf of the MSRTC. The prayer made by the learned counsel for MSRTC is, therefore, rejected. JUDGE JUDGE pdl