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

2. I have heard the learned advocates for the respective sides at length. Since this matter is being disposed of and this order is being passed by consent, I am not required to deal with their entire submissions.

3. The petitioner has preferred Complaint (ULP) No.79/2010 before the Labour Court for challenging his termination dated 13/12/2010 w.e.f. 15/12/2010 by way of punishment after conducting a domestic enquiry into the charges levelled upon him vide charge sheet dated 12/07/2010. By the PartI judgment of the Labour Court dated 10/10/2014, the enquiry is vitiated on account of violation of the principles of natural justice and the findings of the Enquiry Officer have been declared as perverse.

4. The respondent/Management preferred Revision (ULP) No.9/2015 before the Industrial Court, which has been allowed by judgment dated 17/12/2015 and the Part I judgment of the Labour Court stood set aside as the Industrial Court concluded that the enquiry is fair and proper and the findings of the Enquiry Officer are not perverse.

5. It needs mention that the respondent/Management, to my surprise, has examined the Enquiry Officer as its witness on the first two issues regarding the fairness of the enquiry. The Enquiry Officer is a quasi judicial authority and is a creation of the Standing Orders/Service Rules. He is like a judge in a departmental/domestic enquiry. He is neither required to be arrayed as a respondent, nor is he required to be examined.

6. This Court has settled this issue in the matter of Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation, Beed and another Vs. Syed Saheblal Syed Nijam by its judgment dated 03/05/2014, 2014(4) Mh.L.J. 687 that the first two issues with regard to the fairness of the enquiry and the findings of the Enquiry Officer, are to be dealt with by scrutinizing the record and proceedings of the enquiry. This view was taken in an earlier judgment in the case of Maharashtra State Cooperative Cotton Growers Marketing Federation Ltd., and another Vs. Vasant Ambadas Deshpande, decided on 07/01/2014, 2014(3) Mh.L.J. 339 = 2014(I) CLR 878.

7. While arriving at the conclusions in the above two judgments, this Court has considered the law laid down in the following cases :

[1] Permanent Magnets Vs.Vinod Vishnu Wani and others, 2002(3) Mh.L.J.413 = 2002(93) FLR 32.

[2] Vinod Vishnu Wani and others Vs. Permanent Magnets, 2002(93) FLR 66.

[3] Delhi Cloth and General Mills Company Limited Vs. Ludh Budh Singh, 1972(1) SCC 595,

[4] Shambhu Nath Goyal Vs. Bank of Baroda, 1984(4) SCC 491,

[5] A.H.Wadia Charity Trust and others Vs. Neville Jathan and others, 2002(@) Mh.L.J. 723 = 2002 (suppl.) Bom.C.R. 773,

[6] Bharat Forge Company Ltd., Vs. A.B.Zodge and another, AIR 1996 SC 1556,

[7] K.S.R.T.C. Vs.Lakshmidevamma and another, 2001(II) CLR 640.

8. Paragraph No.10, 17, 18, 19, 20 and 22 in the Vasant Deshpande's judgment (supra) read as under :“

10. The Law on conducting a denovo enquiry is settled in light of the Apex Court judgments in case of Bharat Forge Vs. A.B. Zodge reported at 1996(73) FLR 1754 and K.S.R.T.C. Vs. Lakshmidevamma and another, 2001 II CLR 640. As such, there is no doubt that if an employer reserves its right in its written statement to conduct a denovo enquiry in the event of the domestic enquiry being held as vitiated for any reason whatsoever, the Labour Court, upon concluding that the enquiry is vitiated, has to allow the employer to conduct a denovo enquiry.

17. In the instant case as well, the Labour Court concluded that the findings of the Enquiry Officer are perverse and the entire complaint has been allowed by the same judgment without affording any opportunity to conduct a denovo enquiry to the petitioners Management. The only distinction is that in the Permanent Magnet's case (supra), the final order of the punishment was passed and in the instant case, the punishment was proposed in the 2nd show cause notic