JUDGMENT :

RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J.

1. Rule. Rule made returnable forth-with and heard finally by the consent of the parties.

2. The petitioner-employee is aggrieved by the Judgment of the Industrial Court dated 21.7.2018, delivered in Revision (ULP) No. 31/2016, by which the Judgment of the Labour Court dated 20.6.2016, delivered in Complaint (ULP) No. 27/2013, was quashed and set aside. The Complaint was dismissed.

3. I have heard the learned advocates for the respective sides extensively and the submissions made by Shri Barde, Shri Shelke and Shri Bhandari.

4. The issue that once again calls for a decision is, as to whether it is necessary for an employer to reserve it's right to conduct a de-novo enquiry, in the written statement itself.

5. The undisputed factors are as under:-

(a) The petitioner was appointed as a sweeper with the respondent Corporation on 5.6.1995.

(b) It was alleged that, he was absent for a period of six months.

(c) A charge sheet cum show cause notice was issued and after conducting a full-fledged domestic enquiry, he was dismissed by order dated 22.2.2013.

(d) He preferred a Complaint before the Labour Court under the MRTU & PULP Act, 1971.

(e) The petitioner had chall