WP/8614/2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.8614 OF 2010 Govardhan Bajirao Wagh ... Petitioner V/s. The Divisional Controller, Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation, Satara & Anr. ... Respondents Mr. Mandar Limaye for the Petitioner. Mr. G.A. Karmarkar i/b. Mr. G.S. Hegde for Respondent No.1. CORAM : SMT. NISHITA MHATRE, J. DATE : 8 TH FEBRUARY, 2011. P.C. : 1. The petitioner has challenged the order dated 31st August, 2010 passed by the Industrial Court, Satara in Revision (ULP) No.40 of 2009. By this order the order dated 30th April, 2009 passed by the Labour Court, Satara in Complaint (ULP) No.58 of 2007 has been set aside. The Labour Court has held that the findings of the Enquiry Officer are perverse and has, therefore, set aside the enquiry held against the petitioner. 2. On a perusal of the order passed by the Industrial Court, I find that the Industrial Court has, in fact, sat in Appeal over the order of the Labour Court. The powers of the Industrial Court under Section 44 of the Maharashtra Recognition WP/8614/2010 2 of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971, in Revision, are limited to the exercise of supervisory jurisdiction. The Labour Court on an assessment of the evidence led before the Enquiry Officer has found that the enquiry was vitiated as the findings were perverse. According to the Labour Court, the respondent-Corporation had not examined witnesses to prove its charge that the School Leaving Certificate submitted by the petitioner is false. The Head of the School which issued the certificate was not examined. The Industrial Court, instead of considering whether the decision of the Labour Court is perverse, has decided the matter as an Appellate Court would. It has held that the Labour Court ought to have taken a different view. This is not the scope of a revision under Section 44 of the MRTU & PULP Act. 3. The order dated 31st August, 2010 passed by the Industrial Court, Satara in Revision (ULP) No.40 of 2009 is set aside. 4. The Complaint (ULP) No.58 of 2007 is remanded to the Labour Court, Satara. 5. In case the respondent-Corporation applies for permission to lead evidence afresh, the Labour Court, Satara shall consider the application of the respondent- Corporation and grant the permission in accordance with law. 6. The Writ Petition is disposed of with the aforesaid directions.