Megha 38_wp_112_2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.112 OF 2024 Vijay Dagadu Hate ...Petitioner V/s. General Manager, B.E.S. & T. Undertaking ...Respondent ________________ Mr. Sadashiv Limaye for the Petitioner. Mr. Mahesh Shukla with Ms. Heena Shaikh and Mr. Siddhkesh Shinde i/b. M/s. M.C. Kini & Co. for the Respondent. ________________ CORAM: SANDEEP V. MARNE, J. DATED: 24 SEPTEMBER 2026. P.C.: 1) Petition challenges Part-I and Final Awards passed by the Labour Court as well as orders passed by the revisional Court upholding both the Awards. By Part-I Award dated 23 July 2018 the Labour Court has held that enquiry conducted against the Petitioner was fair and proper and that the findings of the Enquiry Officer were not perverse. Part-I Award is upheld by the Industrial Court by dismissing the revision vide order dated 13 March 2019. The Labour Court thereafter proceeded to deliver Final Award dated 17 December 2019 dismissing Complaint (ULP) No.86 Page No. 1 of 4 24 September 2026 2026:BHC-AS:39295 Megha 38_wp_112_2024 of 2017. Final order is confirmed in revision by the Industrial Court by order dated 10 February 2022. 2) I have heard Mr. Limaye, the learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner and Mr. Shukla, the learned counsel appearing for the Respondent-BEST Undertaking and considered the submissions canvassed by them. 3) Charge of misappropriation levelled against the Petitioner contained detailed allegations running into 21 pages. The charge was held to be proved by the Enquiry Officer at the end of the enquiry. In Part-I Award, the Labour Court was expected to determine as to whether enquiry was fair and proper. It is the contention of Mr. Limaye that concerned 23 bills were never supplied to the Petitioner. However, in the Part-I Award the Labour Court has failed to adjudicate this objection raised by the Petitioner. The manner in which the Part-I Award is delivered by the Labour Court is clearly perfunctory. Though issue of fairness of enquiry has no relation to the issue of perversity in the findings of the enquiry report, the Labour Court has proceeded to club both the issues and has decided them in the Part-I Award by recording common findings. There is no discussion by the Labour Court as to how enquiry is fair or proper. Even findings recorded by the Labour Court relating to the issue of perversity do not inspire confidence. The Labour Court has devoted just about three pages in deciding the issues of fairness in the enquiry and perversity in the findings of the enquiry report. When charges arose out of complicated transactions and Page No. 2 of 4 24 September 2026 Megha 38_wp_112_2024 voluminous evidence, it was necessary that the Labour Court ought to have discussed the evidence while deciding the issue of perversity. 4) In my view, therefore, the manner in which preliminary issues relating to fairness in enquiry and perversity in the findings of the report of Enquiry Officer are recorded by the Labour Court, the same does not appeal to this Court. Since Part-I Award itself is erroneous, Final Award rendered by the Labour Court cannot be upheld. The revisional court has unfortunately failed to correct the error committed by the Labour Court. In my view, therefore, order dated 23 July 2018 deserves to be set aside and the Complaint deserves to be remanded for conduct of fresh enquiry in the fairness in the enquiry and perversity in the findings of the Enquiry Officer. Since Part-I Award itself being set aside I have not gone into the correctness of findings recorded in the Final Award. All contentions in this regard are expressly kept open. 5) Petition accordingly succeeds and I proceed to pass the following order:- (i) Part-I Award dated 23 July 2018, revisonal order dated 13 March 2019, Final Award dated 17 December 2019 and revisional order dated 10 February 2022 are set aside. (ii) Complaint (ULP) No.86 of 2017 is restored on the file of the Labour Court, Mumbai, for fresh adjudication on the issues of fairness in the enquiry and perversity in the findings of the Enquiry Officer’s report. Page No. 3 of 4 24 September 2026 Megha 38_wp_112_2024 (iii) All contentions of the parties on merits are expressly kept open. (iv) Remanded proceedings shall be decided by the Labour Court uninfluenced by the findings recorded by this Court in the order. 6) With the above directions, the Writ Petition is disposed of. [SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.] Page No. 4 of 4 24 September 2026 Signed by: Megha S. Parab Designation: PA To Honourable Judge Date: 28/09/2026 15:14:57