1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent of the parties.

2. By this petition, the petitioners are assailing the judgment and order dated 29/02/2010 delivered by the Labour Court, Nanded in complaint U.L.P. No.45/2002 and the judgment and order dated 10/08/2012 delivered by the Industrial Court, Jalna in Revision U.L.P. No.29/2010.

3. The Petitioners had issued a charge sheet cum show cause notice dated 19/06/2001 to the respondent alleging commission of grave and serious misconducts. In the past,, by an order dated 30/12/2000, the respondent was punished with permanent stoppage of one annual increment. By the charge sheet at issue, the respondent was charged with having committed 3 misconducts of mixing inferior quality cotton into superior quality cotton which were said to have caused a loss of Rs.5,25,616.20/- to the petitioner Cotton Federation.

4. After completion of the domestic enquiry, a second show cause notice dated 23/01/2002 was issued to the respondent proposing the punishment of compulsory retirement coupled with conversion of the period of suspension pending enquiry into punishment. He rushed to the Labour Court Jalna by filing complaint U.L.P.No.45/2002 and thus challenged the 2nd show cause notice. The complaint was later on transferred to Nanded Labour Court. The complaint was renumbered as U.L.P.No.1/2002. By judgment and order dated 22/02/2010, the Labour Court allowed the complaint, quashed and set aside the 2nd show cause notice dated 23/01/2002 and virtually prevented the petitioner herein from initiating any disciplinary action against the respondent.

5. The petitioners preferred revision U.L.P. No.29/2010 before the Industrial Court at Jalna. By the impugned judgment dated 10/08/2012, the revision petition was dismissed.

6. The petitioners take exception to the impugned judgments on the following grounds :-

(a) The charge sheet cum show cause notice clearly enumerated the acts committed by the respondent and the charges invoked against him.

(b) Prayers made by the respondent in its complaint, which are at page No.45 of the petition paper book, do not seek any relief in relation to the fairness of the domestic enquiry and the findings of the Enquiry Officer.

(c) The prayers put forth by the respondent were only to the extent of seeking a declaration of U.L.P. against the petitioners for having issued a false, bogus and arbitrary show cause notice dated 23/01/2002 and further seeking quashing and setting aside of the said notice based on the enquiry report dated 19/06/2001.

(d) Conclusions drawn by the Enquiry Officer which are at page No.24 of the petition paper book are supported with reasons based upon oral and documentary evidence recorded in the enquiry.

(e) None of the management witnesses were cross-examined by the respondent.

(f) The respondent workman did not lead oral evidence in the domestic enquiry.

(g) Panchnama was prepared in relation to the mixing of inferior quality cotton with high quality cotton by the respondent.

(h) Documents regarding the panchnama were produced in the enquiry.

(i) Based on the report submitted by the Technical Officers and the Grading Committee, which happens to be an expert body, the fact of mixing of inferior cotton with high quality cotton on the part of the respondent was proved.

(j) Details about the total purchase of cotton and identification of the quantity of inferior quality cotton were also placed before the Enquiry Officer who has considered the same in his report, which is at page no.21 of the petition paper book.

(k) Admission of mixing inferior cotton with high quality cotton by the respondent in presence of the Management as well as in the enquiry has been taken into consideration. Observations in this context are found in the report at page No.22 of the petition paper book.

(l) The petitioners had contended in para No.8 of its written statement before the Labour Court which are at page No. 51, 52 and para No.9 at page No.53 of the pe