( 1 ) THE petitioner was employed as a Supervisor by the Madhya Pradesh Electricity board. As a result of an enquiry held against him on certain charges, Ms services were terminated on 18th June, 1964. The petitioner after usual approach notice filed an application before the Labour Court, Ujjain under section 31 of the Madhya pradesh Industrial Relations Act, 1960 for reinstatement with back wages. The labour Court came to the conclusion that the domestic enquiry was defective. The court then itself enquired into the merits of the charges after giving both parties opportunity to lead evidence. It was finally held that four of the six charges were proved against the petitioner and the order of termination of his services was proper. The petitioner then went up in revision before the Industrial Court, Indore, which was dismissed on 14th December, 1966. The petitioner has now come up under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution and prays that the order of the industrial Court and the Labour Court be quashed and the Electricity Board be directed to reinstate the petitioner with full back wages and other benefits.

( 2 ) THE first point raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that he was not given adequate opportunity to examine certain witnesses before the Labour Court. This point was not argued by the petitioner before the Industrial Court. The petitioner, therefore, cannot be allowed to urge this point under Article 226.

( 3 ) IT was next contended that the Board by a notification issued in October, 1963 had applied the Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules as a regulation applicable to the employees of the Board; that because of this notification Rule 55 of the Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules applied to the petitioner; that as the domestic enquiry held by the Board was not in accordance with Rule 55, it was wholly invalid and that as the matter was not governed by standing orders but by Rule 55 of the Civil Services (Classification, control and Appeal) Rules, the Labour Court had no jurisdiction to enquire into the merits of the charges and after it was found that the enquiry was defective, the petitioner ought to have been reinstated.

( 4 ) THIS is also a point which the petitioner did not argue before the Industrial Court in that court it was never contended that the petitioner was governed by Rule 55 of the Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, and therefore, the labour Court could not itself enquire into the charges. The only point argued in this connection before the Industrial Court was that, as the standing orders did not apply to the petitioner, the termination of employment should have been set aside without any further enquiry. The finding of the Industrial Court on that point was that if the standing orders did not apply, the petitioner was governed by ordinary law of master and servant and his services could be terminated for any act of dishonesty in the performance of his duties. As the petitioner did not argue the applicability of Rule 55 of the Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal)Rules before the Industrial Court, he is not entitled to urge that point before us. Even otherwise we are not at all impressed by the argument. We will assume in favour of the petitioner that Rule 55 of the Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules applied to him as a regulation made by the Electricity Board and the enquiry held against him did not comply with the requirements of that rule. The question on this assumption is whether the Labour Court could itself, on an application for reinstatement made by the petitioner, enquire into the charges and after holding the charges proved disallowed the relief of reinstatement. It is not disputed by the learned counsel for the petitioner that if the procedure of enquiry be governed by standing orders and an employee be dismissed without an enquiry or on the basis of a defec