Raju Audumbar Lokhande vs M/S Rubicon Formulations Pvt. Ltd
2022 Latest Caselaw 10734 Bom

                                           1                    RA / 17 / 2022



          IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                      BENCH AT AURANGABAD

              903 REVIEW APPLICATION (CIVIL) NO.17 OF 2022
                           IN WP/9888/2017

                         RAJU AUDUMBAR LOKHANDE
                                 VERSUS
                    M/S RUBICON FORMULATIONS PVT. LTD.

                                        ...
                  Advocate for Applicants : Mr. Dhobale Nitin L.
                 Advocate for the respondent : Mr. S.S. Vidwauns
                                        ...

                                CORAM    : MANGESH S. PATIL, J.

                                DATE     : 14 OCTOBER 2022

PC :

               Heard.

2. The employee who was a respondent in writ petition

preferred by the employer being aggrieved and dis-satisfied by the

findings recorded by the Labour Court on the usual two preliminary

issues regarding fairness of the domestic enquiry and the perversity in

the findings recorded by the Enquiry Officer, is before this Court. The

Labour Court had answered both these issues in favour of the

employee and the decision was challenged before this Court.

3. By the judgment and order dated 01-10-2021, which is the

order under review, the writ petition was allowed.

                                                  2                       RA / 17 / 2022


4.             Learned          advocate   for       the   employee        Mr.     Dhobale

vehemently submits that the Labour Court having answered the first

issue regarding the fairness of the enquiry in favour of the employee

had not gone into and examined the findings of the Enquiry Officer on

its own merits. Even this Court while allowing the writ petition has

merely set aside the findings of the Labour Court on the first issue

regarding fairness of the enquiry. He submits that the employee is

facing difficulties in convincing the Labour Court which is now

proceeding with the further hearing in the original proceeding without

extending any opportunity to the employee to assail the findings of the

Enquiry Officer on its own merits to demonstrate the perversity.

5. Obviously, since the Labour Court had answered the first

issue regarding fairness of the enquiry in the affirmative and had

expressly stated that merely because of that finding even the second

issue regarding perversity was required to be answered in the

affirmative. Pertinently, it had not gone into and examined if really the

findings were perverse.

6. Simiarly, even this Court by the order under review, has

merely demonstrated as to how the findings of the Labour Court

regarding the first issue and consequently even the second issue was

unsustainable in law.

3 RA / 17 / 2022

7. In view of such state-of-affairs, when neither the Labour

Court at the first instance nor even this Court in the writ petition, has

examined the legality of the findings recorded by the Enquiry Officer, it

would always be open for the Labour Court to undertake that scrutiny

regarding perversity or otherewise of the findings in the domestic

enquiry during the further hearing of the matter which is going on

before it.

8. With this clarification, review application is disposed of.

[ MANGESH S. PATIL ] JUDGE arp/