JUDGMENT

G. S. Kulkarni, J. - Rule, returnable forthwith. Respondent waives service. By consent of the parties heard finally.

2. This is a petition filed under article 227 of the Constitution of India wherein the petitioner assails the judgment and order dated 7 November, 2019 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, 10th Labour Court, Mumbai, in Reference (IDa No.38 of 2015) whereby the Labour Court has held that the enquiry conducted by the respondent/employer against the petitioner is legal, fair and proper and that the findings of the enquiry officer are not perverse in deciding a preliminary issue (part-I). The operative order as passed by the learned Labour Court is required to be noted which reads thus:-

'(i) The enquiry conducted against second party is fair and proper.

(ii) The findings of the enquiry officer are not perverse.'

3. The relevant facts are: The respondent-employer initially appointed the petitioner temporarily as a 'Junior Clerk' on 2 February, 2000 on a consolidated pay of Rs.5,000/- per month for a period of two years. He was permanently appointed from 14 September, 2004. The case of the petitioner is that he suffered harassment at the hands of one Shivaji Wagh, who was the Team Head (thereafter promoted as Deputy Manager and then General Manager) under whom he was working. The petitioner was posted to work as a Personal assistant (P.a.) of Shri.Shivaji Wagh in the year 2006. Some of the instances of the harassment as set out by the petitioner are to the effect that the petitioner was transferred within 7 to 8 months to Colaba area and was assigned an impossible target of increasing sale of milk of 2600 litres per day against normal 1300 litres per day. also such impossible target was not assigned to any other employee and that too a clerk: Such tasks were assigned to him, when the respondent and its concerned officers were well aware that the petitioner was a heart patient and had undergone an Open Heart Surgery in October, 2002. The petitioner has alleged that he was subjected to successive transfers, one on 7 March, 2007 and immediately thereafter on 27 april, 2007. Thereafter on 9 November, 2007, a show cause notice was issued to the petitioner inter-alia alleging that the petitioner's senior had assigned him work on 2 January, 2007 which was not discharged by him, as also alleging that during the office hours, the petitioner was reading newspapers and therefore, the petitioner was not diligent in the day to day discharge of his duties. It was alleged that the said action of the petitioner amounted to misconduct under Rule 18(1), (XI)(XX) contained in Chapter 3 of Part 4 of the Service Rules attracting punishment. The petitioner was called upon to show cause within 7 days as to why disciplinary action ought not to be initiated against him. The petitioner by his letter dated 16 January, 2007 replied to the show cause notice inter-alia pointing out that in the discharge of his official duties he was in fact assigned personal work. He also pointed out the nature of such work, which he was called upon to undertake. He stated that he was required to work in in three shifts which was physically impossible for him to do such work. He stated that he was also assigned the duty of distributing gifts and to reach them to the offices of the Hon'ble Minister and IaS and IPS officers and that too by climbing stairs at some places which was not part of his duties.

4. after considering the reply of the petitioner, the petitioner was informed by the respondent by its communication dated 18/19 april, 2007 that the explanation offered by the petitioner to the show cause notice was not satisfactory. It was recorded that the petitioner's conduct as set out in the show cause notice dated 1/11 January, 2007 amounted to misconduct under Chapter IV Part III Rule No. 19(b) of the Conduct of Employees Rules. The petitioner was called