1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION jmi WRIT PETITION NO.853 OF 2009 . Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai. ..Petitioner. vs. D.M. Nirmal. ..Respondent. .... Mr. P.M. Palshikar, a/w. Ms. Kavita Anchan, i/b. M.V. Kini & Co., for Petitioner. Ms. B.P. Jakhade, for Respondent. .... CORAM : S.J.KATHAWALLA, J. DATE : 25TH AUGUST 2009. P.C. This petition is filed by the petitioner for quashing and setting aside the order dated 14 th November 2008 passed by the Industrial Court, in Appeal (IC) No.06 of 2005. The operative part of the order passed by the Industrial Court is as follows :- “1. The appeal filed by the appellant is disposed of. 2. The finding of the Labour Court that the finding drawn by the Enquiry Officer is perverse, is confirmed. However, the issue of reinstatement with continuity of service and back wages granted to the respondent is quashed and set aside. 2 3. The matter is remanded back to the Labour Court to grant the opportunity to the appellant to justify the action of dismissal taken against the respondent by leading the evidence in accordance with law and to dispose of the matter expeditiously within a period of 6 months from the date of the receipt of the copy of the order. 4. The parties are directed to appear before the Labour Court on 25.11.2008. 5. The R & P send back to the Labour Court.” 2. The Industrial Court has passed the aforesaid order after discussing the evidence inter-alia of certain eye-witnesses to the accident and the statement made by the bus-driver. It is pointed out by the learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner that the Industrial Court has proceeded on the basis that the Investigation Officer has not relied on the evidence of the eye-witnesses, Mr. Irfan Khan and Mr. Ramesh Jain, though it is clear from the evidence of Mr. Ramesh Jain that he was admittedly not an eye-witness to the accident. The Industrial Court has further proceeded on the basis that there is nothing on record to show that the respondent-bus driver 3 overtook the scooter, though the bus driver in his evidence has himself stated that “before the accident took place, I was over-taking the scooter.”. 3. In view of the aforesaid errors apparent on the face of the record, it has become necessary to remand Appeal (IC) No. 06 of 2005 to the Industrial Court for a fresh hearing, to which the learned Advocate appearing for the respondent has no objection. 4. In view thereof, the following order is passed :- (1) The order passed by the Industrial Court, Mumbai, in Appeal (IC) No.06 of 2005 is quashed and set aside. (2) The matter is remanded back to the Industrial Court with a direction to hear Appeal (IC) No.06 of 2005 afresh and pass orders within a period of 8 weeks from today. 5. Writ petition is accordingly, disposed of with no order as to costs. [ S.J.KATHAWALLA, J. ]