2502wp601.11.odt 1/2 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO. 601 OF 2011 (M/s Nagpur Distilleries Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Arvind Sitaramji Kherde) --------------- - ---------------------------- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders - - - - - - - - - - ---------------- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ---------------------------- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Shri D. M. Kakani, Advocate for the petitioner. CORAM : SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK, J. DATE : FEBRUARY 25, 2011. By this petition, the petitioner impugns an order passed by the Industrial Court, dated 25/11/2010, allowing the revision filed by the respondent challenging the order passed by the Labour court rejecting an application filed by the respondent for permission to examine the Enquiry Officer in the matter. On hearing the learned Counsel for the petitioner and on perusal of the impugned order, it appears that the Industrial Court was justified in allowing the revision filed by the respondent and setting aside the order passed by the Labour court rejecting the application filed by the respondent/complainant for permission to examine the Enquiry Officer. Though it was the case of the respondent that the enquiry was not conducted against him in a fair and proper manner, it seems that some contrary admissions have been given by the respondent. However, the respondent wanted to prove that the enquiry was unfair by examining the Enquiry Officer, who was an independent witness. The 2502wp601.11.odt 2/2 Industrial Court, therefore, held that it was necessary to grant sufficient opportunity to the respondent to prove the issue about fairness of the enquiry as the Enquiry Officer was an independent person, neither interested in workman nor in the industry. The Industrial Court held that merely because the respondent had closed his evidence, he could not have been deprived of an opportunity of examining the Enquiry Officer to prove the issue about fairness of the enquiry. There is no jurisdictional error in the order passed by the Industrial Court on 25/11/2010. In the result, the writ petition fails and is dismissed with no order as to costs. JUDGE wwl