JUDGMENT :

Hemant M. Prachchhak, J.

1. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied by the impugned judgment and order dated 14.06.2016 passed by the learned Single Judge in Special Civil Application No.268 of 2003, the appellant – corporation has preferred the present appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent Act.

2. Brief facts giving rise to the present appeal are as under:-

2.1 The respondent – workman was appointed as a conductor with Anjar Depot of Bhuj Division of the appellant – Corporation. He was on duty as conductor on corporation's bus which was on route from Dudhai to Kotda. The checking squad embarked the bus and conducted the checking. The checking squad recorded statements of passengers and subsequently, reported the said incident to the competent authority. After considering the report of the checking squad and supporting material, the appellant - Corporation decided to conduct domestic proceedings against the respondent for the alleged misconduct. Therefore, a chargesheet dated 11.11.1992 along with a statement of allegations was served upon the respondent and after considering explanation/reply, departmental inquiry came to be initiated. According to the appellant, sufficient opportunity of hearing was granted to the respondent and he also examined witness to support and justify his statement of defence. Upon conclusion of the proceedings of the domestic inquiry, the inquiry officer submitted his report. The inquiry officer held that the charge/allegations against the workman are proved. Thereafter, second show cause notice was served upon the respondent and along with the notice, report of the inquiry officer was also provided. The respondent filed his reply to the show cause notice dated 4.11.1993. The disciplinary authority considered the report of the inquiry officer and the material available on record of the inquiry as well as the respondent's reply/explanation. The disciplinary authority agreed with the conclusion of the inquiry officer and found that the charge/allegations are proved which deserved and justified penalty of dismissal from service. Therefore, the disciplinary authority passed the order dated 17.11.1993.

2.2 Feeling aggrieved by the said dismissal order, the respondent filed appeal before the appellate authority which came to be dismissed by the appellate authority. Against the said orders, the respondent raised industrial dispute as aforesaid came to be referred by appropriate government for adjudication to the learned Labour Court, Bhuj-Kutch and was registered as Reference (LCB) No.654 of 1996 (new number). During the proceedings before the learned Labour Court, the respondent filed his statement of claim and alleged that his service was terminated illegally. He challenged the findings of the inquiry officer as incorrect and also claimed that he had not committed any misconduct and the findings by the inquiry officer are perverse and the authorities have acted arbitrarily in terminating his service. With such allegations, the respondent prayed for reinstatement with consequential benefits.

2.3 The reference was opposed by present appellant by filing written statement wherein it mentioned the details about the checking of the bus when the respondent was on duty and the report of the checking squad and the details relating to the inquiry as well as inquiry officer's report and the disciplinary authority's order and rejection of the appeal.

2.4 During the proceedings before the learned Labour Court, the respondent filed pursis declaring that the legality and propriety of the departmental inquiry is not challenged and it is admitted. The respondent, however, challenged the findings of the inquiry officer as incorrect, erroneous and unjustified.

2.5 It appears that though the respondent did not challenge the legality of the inquiry, the learned Labour Court, without recording conclusion that the findings are perverse, recorded evidence and after concluding the stage of evidence and hearing of arguments