Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the respondent and perused the records.

2. The petitioner West Coast Paper Mills limited has called in question the order passed by the Labour Court on a preliminary issue with regard to the validity and legality of the disciplinary enquiry held by the petitioner against the respondent.

3. As could be seen from the orders passed by the Labour Court, a ground has been taken up before the Labour Court that, the domestic enquiry held against the respondent as not fair and proper. The Labour Court has answered the said point in the negative holding that, the domestic enquiry held against the respondent was not fair and proper, therefore the enquiry was set aside and consequently permitted the parties to lead their evidence before the Labour Court afresh in order to prove the alleged misconduct of the respondent. Only ground that has been relied upon by the Labour Court in order to come to such conclusion is that, a private person ‘an Advocate’ has been appointed as an enquiry officer who conducted the enquiry, submitted his report to the disciplinary authority and the enquiry conducted by a private person is not permitted under the regulations of the petitioner herein.

4. The Labour Court has relied upon the opinion expressed by this court in RSA No.1104/2008 to come to such a conclusion. This court in RSA No.1104/2008 between the Management of North West Road Transport Corporation, Hubli Vs. Ramachandra Narayan Joshi vide judgment dated 05th day of June 2014 has observed that:

“the Management of the Corporation has passed an unanimous resolution authorizing the Corporation to appoint any person outside the management as an enquiry officer to conduct enquiry proceedings. As rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the respondent-plaintiff, the resolution of the Corporation cannot over look the statutory provisions of the Act. Unless the standing orders are suitably amended in accordance with law for appointment of any person outside the management etc.

5. The only question that arises for consideration of this court is that, whether the interpretation given by the Labour Court with reference to standing orders of the petitioner is proper and correct. Before adverting to the other important rulings cited by both the counsel, it is just and necessary for this court to examine the Certified Standing Orders of the petitioner i.e., West Coast Paper Mills, Dandeli which is not in dispute. The particular provision is at Regulation No.21 which refers to misconduct, enquiry, procedure and punishment. The above said provision particularly Regulation No.21(2) is very important for the consideration of this court with regard to the appointment of enquiry officer for the purpose of conducting a disciplinary enquiry against the respondent, which reads thus:

“21. MISCONDUCT, ENQUIRIES, PROCEDURE AND PUNISHMENT

(1) XXXXXXX

(2) A workman against whom an enquiry is to be held shall be given a chargesheet clearly setting forth the circumstances appearing against him and requiring explanation. He shall be given an opportunity to answer the charge and permitted to be defended by a workman working in the same department as himself. Except for reasons to be recorded in writing by the officer holding the enquiry, the workman shall be permitted to produce witnesses in his defence and cross-examine any witness on whose evidence the charge rests. A concise summary of the evidence led on either side and the workman’s plea shall be recorded. (emphasis supplied)

6. On plain reading of the above said provision, there is no specification as to, who is to be appointed as an enquiry officer. It all depends upon the interpretation of the words used in the said provision as to, who should be the officer can hold the enquiry. Therefore, in order to have the proper interpretation of the above said provision, it becomes necessary for this court to rely upon the rulings cited by the learned counsel in this regard.

7. As n