2025:BHC-AS:57052 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.9361 OF 2025 D. B. Corp. Ltd. … Petitioner Vs.

Dharmendra Pratap Singh … Respondent Mr. Avinash Jalisatgi a/w. Mr. Vishwabhushan Kamble, Mr. Mulanshu Vora and Ms. Vishakha Chokhani i/b. Jaykar & Partners for Petitioner.

Mr. Vinod Sanjiv Shetty for Respondent. CORAM : MANISH PITALE, J. DATE : DECEMBER 23, 2025 P.C. :

. The petitioner i.e. the employer has filed the present writ petition being partly aggrieved by award (Part I) dated 04.04.2025 passed by the First Labour Court at Mumbai in reference proceedings. While the petitioner has no grievance about clause (1) of the operative portion of the award, whereby it has been declared that the enquiry conducted by the enquiry officer was fair and proper, the petitioner is seriously aggrieved by clause (2) of the operative order, which has declared that the findings of the enquiry officer are perverse.

2. On the other hand, the respondent i.e. the employee supports the aforesaid conclusion of the Labour Court, declaring that the findings of the enquiry officer are perverse. Additionally, it is claimed that since the petitioner would have an opportunity to rely on additional material during proceedings pertaining to Part II of the award, no prejudice is caused to the petitioner and this writ petition ought not to be entertained in the light of the settled position of law.

3. In the present case, the respondent being an employee i.e.

M SA I N N D AL IP DMPA iIg RNit AAa BLl yS sAiNgnDeIdP by PARAB D17a:t5e8: :21062 +5.01523.203 Principal Correspondent of the petitioner, which inter alia, publishes the daily Dainik Bhaskar, was proceeded against in an enquiry on certain charges. The petitioner as well as the respondent produced witnesses in support of their respective stands before the enquiry officer and eventually, the report dated 11.09.2019 of the enquiry officer concluded that the charges were proved against the respondent. On this basis, the services of the respondent were terminated by order dated 24.09.2019.

4. In this context, the reference arose before the Labour Court in which the impugned award (Part I) dated 04.04.2025 was passed in the aforesaid manner, holding against the petitioner, to the extent that the findings of the enquiry officer were declared to be perverse.

5. Mr. Avinash Jalisatgi, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that even if the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the cases of Cooper Engineering Limited Vs. P. P. Mundhe, 1975 (2) SCC 661 as also F T and R Co. of India (P) Ltd. Vs. Its Workmen Employees Union, 1981 (3) SCC 451 is taken into consideration, in the light of the position of law clarified by the learned Single Judge of this Court in the case of Mahindra and Mahindra Vs. Suryabhan Avhad, 2007 (6) Mh.L.J. 436, confirmed by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Suryabhan Maruti Avhad Vs. Mahindra and Mahindra Limited, 2010 SCC OnLine Bom 2246, the Writ Court can exercise jurisdiction to consider the correctness or otherwise of award (Part I) and there cannot be a blanket bar on the exercise of writ jurisdiction in such cases. The said position of law was recently reiterated by a learned Single Judge of this Court in the case of Jayashree Electron Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Prashant Ranu Gaware, 2024 SCC OnLine Bom 2706. The scope of jurisdiction available to a Writ Court was further clarified and the petitioner specifically relied upon the said judgement also. It was submitted that as per the said position of law, although this Court may be reluctant to interfere at such preliminary stage, if the findings rendered by the Labour Court are demonstrated to be completely vitiated and perverse, writ jurisdiction can be exercised to interfere with the same.

6. It was submitted that in the instant case, such perversity in the impugned award (Part I) of the Labour Court can be demonstrated, and hence, the instant writ petition deserves to b