S.R. Brahmbhatt, J.

Rule. Mr. Desai, learned advocates waives service of Rule on behalf of respondent. By consent rule is fixed forthwith.

2. Heard learned Counsel for the parties:

3. In this matter, as it is noted in order dated September 18, 2009, both the counsels had requested that the matter be decided finally. Accordingly, the matter was posted on September 22, 2009 and the matter was heard and it was listed for dictation of the order and receiving the gist of submission in writing, which the learned advocates rely in support of their respective claim. Accordingly, the written submissions are taken on record.

4. The petitioner-workman in Reference (IT) Old No. 50/1995, New No. 636/2004, once again renumbered as New No. 504/2008, has challenged the order and award dated January, 12, 2009 passed by the Central Government' Industrial Tribunal Ahmedabad below Exhibits 8 and 79, whereunder, the Industrial Tribunal declared that the departmental inquiry conducted against the petitioner was just legal and proper. The Tribunal posted further hearing on January 22, 2009.

5. Facts in brief deserve to be set out as under.

6. The petitioner, as stated in the petition was working as Cashier-cum-Clerk in the respondent Bank. He came to be served with charge-sheet on June 8, 1988. The petitioner filed reply to the charge-sheet denying the charges on September 8, 1988. The' Departmental Inquiry was conducted and ultimately, petitioner came to be discharged from the services of the Bank with effect from September 6, 1991. The petitioner raised industrial dispute, which came to be referred to the Tribunal, wherein, it was marked as Reference (IT) Old No. 50/1995. The petitioner filed an application at Exhibit 8 specifically challenging the legality and propriety of the inquiry and also the findings of the inquiry officer. The Tribunal after hearing the submissions of parties, passed an order on May 30, 2006 declaring that the departmental inquiry held against the petitioner was not legal. The Tribunal recorded its findings that the findings recorded by the Inquiry Officer were not based on evidence. The order of Tribunal dated May 30, 2006 is produced on the record of this petition.

7. The respondent Bank filed an application for setting aside the said order dated May 30, 2006, however, the said application came to be rejected by the Tribunal vide its order dated September 13, 2007. Said copy has also been produced on record. The respondent Bank therefore filed Special Civil Application No. 510/2008 challenging the aforesaid two orders namely order dated May 30, 2006 and September 13, 2007. This Court disposed of the matter on March 4, 2008 directing the CGIT-cum-Labour Court to decide preliminary points raised by the petitioner as to whether inquiry conducted against him was just and proper and findings recorded by the Inquiry Officer was baseless and perverse and contrary to the provisions of law. The Court was directed to decide the same within two months from the date of receipt of writ of the Court. The order passed by this Court on March 4, 2008 is produced on record of this petition.

8. The respondent Bank examined one witness and filed short notes of arguments. The Tribunal passed an order on January 12, 2009 in the said Reference declaring that the inquiry was just and proper, which is impugned in the present petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

9. Learned advocate Shri Clerk for the petitioner raided following contentions which could be set out as per the gist of the submissions. Shri Clerk contended that this Court categorically directed the Labour Court in its Order dated March 4, 2008 in S.C.A. 510/2008, to decide the preliminary point as to whether inquiry conducted by the bank was legal, valid or not and whether findings recorded by Inquiry Officer were perverse or not. In the order impugned the Tribunal has not recorded any findings with regard to the perversity or otherwise of the findings of I.O. in the