C. Hari Shankar, J.

1. Baldev Raj – petitioner before me and Conductor with the respondent- Corporation before he was shown the door on 3rd July, 1990 has invoked the extraordinary jurisdiction, conferred on this Court by Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, against orders dated 23rd February, 2004 and 5th April, 2004, passed by the Labour Court No. 1, Karkardooma, Delhi.

2. The opinion which I propose to take, in the present case, obviates the necessity of any exhaustive allusion to facts. (Indeed, any such allusion would advisably merit eschewal, lest it prejudices the case of either party.) The case at hand would, therefore, have to be set out, in the proverbial “nutshell”, as under.

3. The petitioner, while working as a conductor with the respondent, was issued a charge sheet, dated 14th December, 1988, essentially alleging that he had overcharged certain passengers. Submission of reply, by the petitioner, thereto, was inexorably followed by a domestic inquiry, which commenced on 26th May, 1989 and was concluded, on 10th July, 1989. The inquiry report, submitted by the Inquiry Officer (hereinafter referred to as “IO’’), pursuant thereto, held the charges against the petitioner to have been proved. Following thereupon, the respondent issued a show cause notice to the petitioner on 19th January, 1990, proposing his removal from service. The reply, by the petitioner, thereto, was held to be unsatisfactory and, again inexorably, order dated 3rd July, 1990, removing the petitioner from service, followed.

4. On the same date, i.e. 3rd July, 1990, the respondent filed an application, under section 33(2)(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”), before the Labour Court, seeking approval of its decision to remove the petitioner from service as there was, at that time, an industrial dispute pending between the petitioner and the respondent. This application came to be numbered OP 35/1990. Reply and rejoinder were filed, therein, followed by affidavit-in-evidence, on the part of the petitioner, and the IO, each being cross-examined thereon. Thereafter, on 5th July 1991, the following preliminary issue was framed (in OP 35/1990):

Whether the applicant held a legal and valid enquiry against the respondent according to the principles of natural justice?

5. In the interregnum, notice, dated 13th July, 1990, was sent by the petitioner to the respondent, alleging that his removal from service was illegal. No response being forthcoming, thereto, a statement of claim was filed, by the petitioner, before the Conciliation Officer, on 20th July, 1990. Conciliation failed, resulting in a reference, dated 21st January, 1991 (later numbered ID 147/1991), to the Labour Court, under Section 10(1)(c) and 12(5) of the Act, the term of reference reading thus:

“Whether the termination of the petitioner was illegal and/or unjustified and, if so, to what relief is he entitled and what direction is unnecessary in this respect?”

6. Statement of claim, was filed, therein, by the petitioner, before the Labour Court on 15th February, 1991. The following preliminary issue was framed (in ID 147/1991):

“Whether proper and fair enquiry was held against the workman?”

7. So far, the petitioner would contend, so good. At this point, however, according to the petitioner, the Labour Court went completely astray, in clubbing OP 35/1990 and ID 147/1991, for adjudication. Vide a common order, dated 24th February 1994 (impugned by the petitioner), the preliminary issues framed in OP 35/1990 and ID 147/1991 were decided, by the Labour Court. The operative portion of the said order (para 13) reads thus:

“Accordingly, I hold that management conducted fair and proper enquiry against the claimant on which basis the Enquiry Officer held the claimant guilty for the charges levelled against him which were based on evidence as was adduced by the parties before him. The enquiry issue is accordingly decided in favour of the managemen