( 1 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, AURANGABAD BENCH, AT AURANGABAD. WRIT PETITION NO. 4433 OF 1995 Motilal s/o. Bandusingh Kayate, Age : 39 years, Occupation : Nil, R/o. 28, Kale Colony, Sillod, District : Aurangabad. .. Petitioner. versus 1. M.S.R.T.C., Aurangabad Division, Through Divisional Controller, Aurangabad. 2. The Divisional Trafic Supdt. (Discipline), M.S.R.T.C., Aurangabad Division, Aurangabad. .. Respondents. ....................... Mr. B.R. Warama, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mrs. R.D. Reddy, Advocate, for respondent nos.1 and 2. ........................ ( 2 ) CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI, J. DATE : 18TH APRIL 2011 ORAL JUDGMENT : 1. Heard Adv. Mr. B.R. Warama, for the petitioner, and Adv. Mrs. R.D. Reddy, for the respondents. 2. The petitioner has challenged the judgment and order dated 28-7-1995, passed by the learned Member of Industrial Court, Aurangabad, in Revision (ULP) No. 29 of 1994, thereby allowing the revision filed by the respondent. By the impugned order, the Industrial Court has set aside the judgment and order dated 12-11-1993, passed by the learned Judge of Labour Court, Aurangabad, in Complaint (ULP) No. 327/1993. Complaint (ULP) No. 327/1993 was filed by the petitioner against the order of dismissal from service. The said complaint was allowed by the Labour Court by directing reinstatement of the petitioner with continuity, however, two increments for two years of the complainant were directed to be stopped. 3. Adv. Mr. B.R. Warama, for the petitioner, contends that the inquiry conducted against the petitioner suffers from bias ( 3 ) and violation of principles of natural justice as very person who issued the charge sheet has conducted it, then prepared inquiry report and thereafter, acted as disciplinary authority to issue punishment order. According to him, in this situation, view taken by the Labour Court ought to have been upheld by the Industrial Court and its judgment dated 28-7-1995 is unsustainable. 4. Adv. Mrs. R.D. Reddy, for the respondents, contends that the Labour Court did not correctly appreciate the findings of Inquiry Officer and, therefore, Industrial Court has corrected that error. The Industrial Court found the petitioner guilty of re- issuing used tickets, misconduct of grave and serious nature and, therefore, punishment inflicted upon him was just and proper. 5. With the assistance of both learned Counsel, I have perused the papers. Perusal of judgment dated 12-11-1993 delivered by Labour Court, Aurangabad, in Complaint (ULP) No. 327/1993 does not show any finding on preliminary issue about validity of departmental inquiry or then about perversity or otherwise of finding recorded by Inquiry Officer. It has treated the matter as if it is a routine matter and framed issues directly casting burden about correctness or otherwise of the punishment inflicted. Thus, the procedure required to be followed in such ( 4 ) matters has not been adopted by the Labour Court. 6. Learned Member of the Industrial Court in revisional jurisdiction has again not corrected that error. It has straightway gone into findings recorded by the Inquiry Officer and recorded a finding in favour of employer. I, therefore, find that both the courts have not correctly applied their mind. Approach of the court in such matters is laid down by Hon. Apex Court reported at AIR 1975 SC 1900, in the case of The Cooper Engineering Ltd. Vs. P.P. Mundhe, and AIR 1996 SC 1556, in the case of Bharat Forge Company Ltd. Vs. A.B. Zodge and another. The Labour Court has to first frame preliminary issue to find out whether inquiry conducted is fair and valid in accordance with principles of natural justice. If it finds inquiry fair and valid, it has to answer question whether findings recorded by the Inquiry Officer are just and proper or not. If it answers these questions in negative and employer has reserved right to prove misconduct by leading evidence before it, it has to give that opportunity to the employer. Here, written statement filed by respondent / employer reserves such right to lead evidence. 7. It is, therefore, apparent that by not framing such preliminary issue and answering it either way, Labour Court as also Industrial Court, have failed to exercise jurisdiction ( 5 ) available to them in accordance with law. Hence, not only judgment dated 28-7-1995 delivered by the Industrial Court, Aurangabad, but also judgment dated 12-11-1993, delivered by Labour Court, Aurangabad, is liable to be quashed and set aside. 8. In the result, the petition is partly allowed. (i) The impugned judgment and order dated 28-7-1995, passed by the learned Member of Industrial Court, Aurangabad, in Revision (ULP) No. 29 of 1994, is quashed and set aside. So also, the judgment and order dated 12-11-1993, passed by the learned Judge of Labour Court, Aurangabad, in Complaint (ULP) No. 327/1993, is quashed and set aside. (ii) The proceedings in Complaint (ULP) No. 327/1993 are restored back to the file of Labour Court, Aurangabad, for taking fresh decision in accordance with law. The Labour Court shall frame preliminary issues and after adjudication thereof, decide the Complaint as early as possible and in any case, by 31st December 2011. (iii) Parties are directed to appear before the Labour Court, Aurangabad, on 6th May 2011 and to abide by its further instructions in the matter. ( 6 ) 9. Rule is made absolute accordingly. No costs. ( B.P. DHARMADHIKARI ) JUDGE ......................... bgp/4433wp