( 1 ) THIS case has been referred by a Division Bench of which one of us (Shivdayal C. J.) was and member, to a larger Bench with the following observations made at the time of admissions "in view of the decision of this Court in Navalkishore Narayan bhargava v. M. P. Road Transport Corporation, 1975 MPLJ 251, which, in our opinion, requires a re-consideration, we direct that this case be placed before the Chief Justice for constituting a larger Bench for hearing this petition. ''

( 2 ) THE facts giving rise to this petition are these: The petitioner Nandkishore singh was employed as a Conductor by the M. F. S. R. T. Corporation (which will hereinafter be referred to as "the Con-poration" ). On 15-8-74, when he was on (sic) in Stage Carriage No. 9259 plying on Raipur-Konda route, the Flying squad composed of Shri S. C. Mukerji and Shri Jimnani checked the vehicle and found 56 passengers travelling without tickets even though the Conductor had charged fare from them. Accordingly, the petitioner was charge-sheeted in due course and after Departmental Enquiry was dismissed from service on 10-1274.

( 3 ) AGGRIEVED by the order of his dismissal the petitioner filed an application under Section 31 (3) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1960 (which will hereinafter be referred to as 'the Act'), before the State Labour Court, Raipur, and prayed that he may be ordered to be reinstated and back wages may be awarded to him. The Corporation resisted the petitioner's application. After recording the evidence produced by the parties the Labour Court held by its order dated March 19, 1976, that the Departmental Enquiry conducted against the petitioner was illegal and hence vitiated and that the charges preferred against the petitioner wep" not proved, Therefore, it directed that the petitioner be reinstated with full back wages. A copy of the order D/- 18-3-76 has been placed on the record and marked Annexure 'a'.

( 4 ) DISSATISFIED with the order of the Labour Court, the Corporation filed a revision petition under Section 66 of the Act before the Industrial Court, Indore, which by its order dated 4-S-76 (Annex. 'b') allowed the revision application and set aside the order of the Labour Court, Rai-pur.

( 5 ) BY this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution the petitioner has prayed that the order of the Industrial Court be quashed and that of the Labour court be restored. The petition has been opposed on behalf of the Corporation. ( 6 ) MR. Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioner, has strenuously urged that the industrial Court had no jurisdiction to disturb the findings of fact arrived at by the Labour Court inasmuch as under Section 66 of the Act, the Industrial Court can reverse the order of the Labour Court only if it is satisfied that the Labour court has exercised jurisdiction not vested in it by law, or has failed to exercise the jurisdiction so vested or has acted in exercise of its jurisdiction illegally or with material irregularity. It is submitted that none of these conditions was satis-fied in the present case and, therefore, the impugned order of the industrial Court is patently illegal and is liable to be set aside in exercise of the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution.

( 7 ) WE may state at once that the revi-sicnal powers of the Industrial Court are undoubtedly circumscribed by the conditions laid down in Section 66 of the Act which reads as under:

"section 66 -- Revision -- (1) The Industrial Court, may on the application by any party to a case which has been finally decided by a labour Court other than a case decided under para (D) of Sub-section (1) of Section 61 call for and examine the record of such case and may pass such order in reference thereto as it thinks fit: provided that the Industrial Court shall not vary or reverse any order of the Labour Court under this Section unless - (i) it is satisfied that the Labour Court has - (a) exercised jurisdiction not ve