JUDGMENT
MRIDULA BHATKAR, J.

This Letters Patent Appeal is directed against the order dated 23rd March, 2007 passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No. 8129 of 2006.

2. The respondent was an employee in the appellant-company. He was charged for misconduct due to absentism of 188 days without leave and good reason and was terminated on 3rd March, 1998. The respondent challenged the termination on the ground of illegality, adopting unfair labour practices under section 28(1) of Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 (for short MRTU & PULP Act). In the complaint, he challenged the fairness of the inquiry and the findings of the enquiry held against him. The Labour Court declared the enquiry as unfair, perverse and not in accordance with the principles of natural justice and directed the appellant-company to prove the misconduct before the Court by leading evidence and to substantiate the punishment of termination. The said order was confirmed by the Industrial Court in the Revision application filed by the appellant-company. The appellant challenged the order of the Industrial Court by way of writ petition and the learned Single Judge of this Court dismissed the Writ Petition. Hence, this appeal.

3. The respondent-worker allegedly remained absent from 1st January, 1997 to 5th June, 1997 without any intimation, good cause and leave application. The Company issued show-cause notice dated 5th June, 1997 in which the period of absentism was wrongly mentioned as 1st January, 1991 to 5th June, 1991 instead of 1st January, 1997 to 5th June, 1997. The respondent replied the show-cause notice and pointed out the mistake of the period of absentism mentioned in the notice and clarified that he remained absent due to his illness, in support of which, he relied on the medical certificate. The Company issued charge-sheet on 11th June, 1997 wherein imputation of prolonged absentism of one year i.e. from May, 1996 to May, 1997 was mentioned. In the enquiry, the respondent appeared and an opportunity was given to both the parties to lead their respective evidence. The enquiry officer concluded that the respondent was absent without leave and was held guilty of misconduct. The Labour Court did not accept the findings of the Enquiry Officer but found it perverse. The Labour Court observed that the inference of the Enquiry Officer that running of hotel business by the respondent was a reason for the absentism of the respondent is baseless and without reason. Moreover, it was found that no findings were given by the Enquiry Officer regarding absentism from June, 1996 to December, 1996 and therefore, half the charges are baseless and vague the respondent has time and again stated that he was sick and requested the Enquiry Officer not to proceed. However, the Enquiry Officer continued without verifying whether the respondent is sick or not.

4. The learned Single Judge in the writ petition held that Award Part I is passed on” the preliminary issue of fairness of the inquiry, by the Labour Court and the appellant has been granted permission to lead evidence to substantiate the charge of misconduct. The learned Single Judge has acceded to the objection of the respondent that the High Court should not interfere with the interlocutory order passed by the Labour Court, as the correctness of the order can be agitated even after passing the final award. The learned Single Judge decided not to go into the legality or otherwise of the order passed by the Labour Court. The learned Single Judge placed reliance on paragraph 22 of the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of The Cooper Engineering Ltd. v. P.P. Mundhe, 1975 (31) FLR 188 (SC) and also the observation in D.P. Maheshari v. Delhi, 1983 (47) FLR 477 (SC).

5. On this background, the learned Senior Counsel Mr. Talsania urged that the learned Single Judge ought to have gone into legality of the Part I Award of the Labour Court though it is on pr