1. - Riding on the roller coster of litigations, from the Labour Court to this Court, the appellant has challenged the judgment dated 29.8.97 whereby the learned Single Judge has remanded the case back to the Labour Court.

2. Briefly, the facts of the case are that the appellant was working as H.T. Operator in the mills owned by the National Textile Corporation, respondent No. 1 at Beawar. On 18.6.83, the appellant refused to wind the fuse of gang operating switch by stating that the winding up of the said fuse was the job of the Rajasthan State Electricity Board ('RSEB', for short) and not of the H.T. Operator. His refusal to wind the fuse resulted in obstruction of the production of the mill for about 1 hour and 48 minutes. Since his refusal amounted to a misconduct, the appellant was charge-sheeted. The appellant submitted a reply to the charge-sheet. The inquiry officer eventually found the appellant guilty of the charges and subsequently the appellant was dismissed from the service. Through the Textile Labour Union, the appellant went before the Conciliation Officer. But, even the Conciliation Officer did not succeed in reconciling the management and the appellant. Thus the Conciliation Officer submitted a failure report to the Government of Rajasthan. The Government of Rajasthan referred an industrial dispute to the Labour Court questioning the legality of the dismissal. Vide award dated 21.11.88 the Labour Court passed the award in favour of the appellant and directed his reinstatement with full back wages. The respondent, National Textile Corporation, challenged the said award before the learned Single Judge of this Court. Vide judgment dated 29.8.98 the learned Single Judge held that the petition could be disposed of on the point that the Labour Court failed to deal with the application moved by the respondent-Corporation for summoning a competent officer from the RSEB who could give evidence as to whether to wind the fuse of the gang pole operating switch was to be done by them, or by the workman. Therefore, it remanded the case back to the Labour Court to record the additional evidence of such a witness. Since the appellant is aggrieved by the said order, he has filed the present appeal before this court.

3. Mr. N.K. Maloo, learned counsel for the appellant, has vehemently argued that once the Labour Court comes to the conclusion that the domestic inquiry held by the employer was fair and reasonable, there is no scope for permitting the employer to lead any further evidence before the Labour Court. In order to substantiate this contention, the learned counsel has relied on Management of Ritz Theatre Delhi v. Workmen (AIR 1963 SC 295) and on J.K. Synthetics Ltd. v. Labour Court & Anr. (D.B. Special Appeal (Writ) No. 272/96 decided by this court on 23.1.2007 ).

4. As no one has appeared on behalf of the respondent-Corporation, this court does not have the benefit of any assistance from the side of the respondent.

5. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant, have examined the record and have perused the impugned judgment.

6. A bare perusal of the award dated 21.11.88 clearly shows that the learned Labour Court had concluded that the domestic inquiry held against the appellant was valid. However, it also concluded that it was not the job of the appellant to wind the fuse of the gang operating switch. For, before a person was permitted to climb on the electricity pole, the prior permission, from the RSEB had to be taken. In the absence of such a permission, the appellant was justified in refusing to wind the fuse of gang operating switch. Therefore, the Labour Court came to the conclusion that the appellant had not committed any misconduct. Hence, his dismissal from service was illegal. Once the learned Labour Court had concluded that the procedure for holding the departmental inquiry had been followed but the conclusion drawn by the inquiry officer and by the disciplinary authority was illegal, there was