1. By this petition, the Petitioner Corporation has challenged the judgment of the Labour Court dated 15.07.1993 by which, Complaint (ULP) No. 17/1992 filed by the Respondent/original Complainant has been allowed and the second show cause notice proposing the punishment of dismissal from service dated 17.06.1992, is quashed and set aside on the basis of evidence freshly adduced and without framing an issue as to whether, the enquiry is fair and proper and whether, the findings of the Enquiry Officer are perverse.

2. The Petitioner is also aggrieved by the judgment of the Industrial Court dated 27.03.2003 by which, the Industrial Court partly allowed Revision (ULP) No. 91/1993 filed by the Petitioner and yet, granted the same relief that was granted by the Labour Court.

3. On 05.05.2004, this Court has admitted the petition and issued Rule on interim relief. On 27.07.2004, this Court noted that the notice of rule was served on the Respondent/ Workman and he has not caused his appearance either in person or through an Advocate. It was further noted that the Respondent was not reinstated pursuant to the impugned orders and hence, interim relief in terms of prayer clause "D" was granted to the Petitioner Corporation, staying the impugned judgments.

4. I have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the Petitioner Corporation and have gone through the record available with her assistance.

5. The Respondent was a Bus Conductor with the Petitioner Corporation. On 07.02.1992, while on duty on the Aurangabad Udgir segment, the bus was subjected to a surprise check. A group of passengers traveling from Pachod to Georai was found to be possessing used tickets, which were already issued to other passengers previously. The checking squad found that these used tickets were resold by the Respondent/Conductor to the said passengers. An amount of Rs. 236.85 were found less in the official cash bag of the Respondent/Conductor.

6. The Respondent was issued with a charge sheet and after conducting an enquiry as per the Discipline and Appeal Procedure, the Respondent was found guilty of the charges levelled upon him. He was, therefore, issued with the second show cause notice dated 17.06.1992. He was informed that he should show cause as to why the Petitioner Corporation should not agree with the findings of the Enquiry Officer and as to why, he should not be awarded the punishment of dismissal for his act of misappropriation.

7. The Respondent/ Conductor approached the Labour Court by filing Complaint (ULP) No.17/1992 challenging the proposed punishment. It was contended that the enquiry was conducted in defiance of the principles of natural justice, the findings of the Enquiry Officer were perverse and the punishment proposed was shockingly disproportionate to the gravity and seriousness of the misconduct at issue.

8. The Labour Court has framed the following issues :

Sr. No.	Issues	Findings
1.	Does complainant proves that the show cause notice of dismissal dated 17.06.1992 issued by respondent is by way of :
	(i) Victimization	Yes
	(ii) not in good faith but in the colourable exercise of the employer's rights	Yes
	(iii) by conducted evidence	No
	(iv) for patently false reasons	No
	(v) in utter disregard of the principles of natural justice	Yes
	(vi) with undue haste	Yes
	(vii) for misconduct of minor or technical character ithout having any regard with the nature of particular misconduct so as to amount to shockingly disproportionate punishment?	Yes
2.	Is complainant entitled for reinstatement with continuity and backwages?	Yes

(Reproduced verbatim)

9. It is crystallized law that when an employee challenges the fairness of a departmental/ domestic enquiry and the findings of the Enquiry Officer, two issues