K.M. THAKER, J.

1. Heard learned advocate for the petitioner and learned advocate for the respondent.

2. In present petition, the petitioner - Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation ["the Corporation" for short] has prayed, inter alia, that:

"8(b) Be pleased to allow this Special Civil Application by way of issuing appropriate writ, writ of mandamus or writ or order or directions quashing and setting aside the order dated 24/02/2016 passed by the Hon'ble Industrial Tribunal at Vadodara in an application below 30 moved by Respondent No.1 in Reference (IT) No.70 of 2010 quashing and setting aside the Penal order dated 28/02/2001 of stoppage of two increments with future effect, annexed as Annexure-G in the interest of justice."

3. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 24.2.2014 passed by learned Tribunal at Vadodara in Reference No.70 of 2010. The said order is passed at interlocutory stage. By impugned order, the learned Tribunal declined permission to present petitioner to lead evidence (i.e. to conduct denovo inquiry) to prove the charge and allegations against the workman after the learned Tribunal declared domestic inquiry defective and therefore, illegal.

3.1 The short issue, which is raised in and involved in present petition is as to whether the petitioner should be granted opportunity to conduct the (domestic) inquiry denovo i.e. should the petitioner be granted opportunity to prove the allegations before the Tribunal after the Tribunal declared that the domestic inquiry conducted by the employer (present petitioner) is defective. Whether opportunity to prove the charge should be granted to the employer, is the question.

3.2 Ordinarily, this Court would not entertain a petition against interlocutory order and would ask the petitioner who approach this Court against interlocutory order passed during pendency of the parent proceedings before learned Tribunal, to let the proceedings before the learned trial Court progress further and to challenge the interlocutory order after final order is rendered, if the grievance and cause to challenge interlocutory order survives.

3.3 However, in present case, challenge against the interlocutory order is required to be decided either in favour of or against the petitioner at this stage because not only the petitioner's challenge against the said order would, otherwise, be rendered infructuous and it may ultimately result into further delay in the proceedings if the order is challenged after final decision in reference case, but the petitioner may be deprived of his right and opportunity to lead evidence. Therefore, this Court considers it appropriate to examine the petitioner's dispute against the interlocutory order which is placed under challenge in present petition.

4. So far as factual background is concerned, it has emerged from the record that the respondent herein was in service with present petitioner. He worked as Driver. While the respondent was on duty on 26.1.2000 and was driving a bus from Vadodara to Jambusar, he, allegedly, caused an accident and knocked down a cyclist in Rajkot city. Therefore, a show cause notice was issued and domestic inquiry was conducted. Upon conclusion of the inquiry proceedings, the Inquiry Officer submitted his report wherein he held that the charge and allegations against the workman are proved. Therefore, the competent authority passed order of penalty. The authority directed stoppage of two increments with future effect vide penalty order dated 28.2.2001.

4.1 The workman felt aggrieved by the said decision and that therefore he raised industrial dispute. Appropriate government referred the dispute for adjudication to learned Tribunal. The learned Tribunal registered the dispute as Reference No.70 of 2010.

4.2 During the proceedings of said reference case before the learned Tribunal, the workman questioned legality and propriety of the inquiry with the allegation that the inquiry was defective, inasmuch as the corporation committ