ORAL JUDGMENT :- Heard. Rule. By consent, the rule is made returnable forthwith.

2. The petitioner challenges the judgment and order dated 13th October, 2006 passed by the Industrial Court at Kolhapur, in Revision Application (ULP) No. 25 of 2004. The challenge to the impugned judgment and order is restricted to the permission granted to the respondent/employer to lead additional evidence consequent to the findings arrived at by the Labour Court about the inquiry being vitiated.

3. The learned advocate appearing for the petitioner, while drawing attention to the decisions of the Apex Court in Delhi Cloth and General Mills Co. vs. Ludh Budh Singh, reported in AIR 1972 SC 1031, Shankar Chakravarti vs. Britannia Biscuit Co. Ltd. and anr., reported in AIR 1979 SC 1652, Shambhu Nath Goyal vs. Bank of Baroda and ors., reported in AIR 1984 SC 289, Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation vs. Lakshmidevamma (Smt.) and anr., reported in 2001 (II) CLR 640, submitted that the Industrial Court has failed to consider that the decision about the refusal of permission to the employee to amend the written statement in relation to the right to lead additional evidence had attained finality conseq

Click Here to Read the rest of this document