Judgment R.L.Narasimham, J. 1. This is an application under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution for the quashing of the award given by Shri H. Sahai, Presiding Officer, Labour Court Patna, in Reference No 9 of 1963, holding that the employer viz. opposite party No. 2, was justified in dismissing one of its workmen, viz., Shri Shashi Bhushan Sharma, for misconduct. 2. The dismissal of the said workman was taken up by the Patna Electric Supply Mazdoor Union (the petitioner), and the reference under Sec.10 of the Industrial Disputes Act was made by the Government of Bihar as early as the 10th August, 1963. This reference was heard formerly by Shri K.N. Singh, Presiding Officer of the Labour Court, Patna, who gave his award on the 3rd August, 1964. Six charges were framed against the workman by the employer, and a domestic enquiry was held before his dismissal from service. Shri K.N. Singh examined the evidence in respect of the six charges, and held that only one of those charges, viz., charge No. 3, which dealt with unauthorised extension of electric supply, was proved. He thought that, for this act of misconduct, the employer was justified in dismissing the workman, and gave his award accordingly. That award was challenged by the union (the petitioner) in a writ application filed in this Court in Miscellaneous Judicial Case No. 1253 of 1964. That application was finally disposed of by a Bench of this Court consisting of Choudhary and G.N. Prasad, JJ., who passed the following order "Acting in exercise of the powers conferred upon this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution, I set aside the award of the Labour Court and send back the case to that Court for a fresh decision in accordance with law." 3. Thereupon, the industrial reference was taken up by Shri H. Sahai. Before him, there was acute controversy between the parties as regards the interpretation of the order of remand passed by the Bench. On behalf of the employer, it was contended that the remand was an open remand, and that the Labour Court had full jurisdiction to examine the case against the workman in respect of all the six charges of misconduct. On behalf of the employer, it was contended that the remand was an open remand, and that the Labour Court had full jurisdiction to examine the case against the workman in respect of all the six charges of misconduct. On behalf of the Union, however, it was contended that, inasmuch as the writ application was filed by the union against the finding of the earlier Labour Court in respect of charge No 3 only, the remand also should be confined to a further examination by the succeeding Labour Court in respect of that charge, and that, as regards the remaining charges, which were held to be not proved by the earlier Labour Court, the succeeding Labour Court had no jurisdiction to further examine this question. 4. The decision of the succeeding Labour Court in respect of this preliminary point was not in favour of the employer, and, thereupon, that employer filed another writ application in this Court (C. W. J. C. No. 1106 of 1965) for issue of an appropriate direction to the Court concerned. This was heard by another Bench of this Court consisting of S.C. Misra and S.N.P. Singh, JJ., who, without giving notice to the other side, disposed of it in limine on the 2nd November, 1965, by passing the following order: "This application is allowed to be withdrawn as prayed for with the observation however that the remand order of High Court, which is an open remand dated 8-4-1965, does not fetter the discretion of the Court in admitting the additional documentary evidence. Sd/- S. C. Misra. Sd/- S. N. P. Singh." 5. In view of this interpretation of the operative portion of the order in Miscellaneous Judicial Case No. 1253 of 1964, the learned Tribunal thought that it was free to examine the case against the workman in respect of all the six charges. After such examination, it held that charge No. 1, which dealt with the tampering of meter seals, and charge No. 6, which dealt with theft, fraud and dishonesty in connection with companys business and property, were both established. As regards charge No. 3, it disagreed with the view taken by its predecessor, and held that the workman was not guilty of the charge. In the result, however, after holding that charges Nos. 1 and 6 were established, it thought that the dismissal of the workman was justified. 6. Mr. As regards charge No. 3, it disagreed with the view taken by its predecessor, and held that the workman was not guilty of the charge. In the result, however, after holding that charges Nos. 1 and 6 were established, it thought that the dismissal of the workman was justified. 6. Mr. J.C. Sinha, who appeared for the petitioner, contended that the Labour Court (Shri H. Sahai) exceeded its jurisdiction in examining charges Nos. 1 and 6 against the workman. According to him, on a true construction of the remand order of the Bench, the Labour Court had jurisdiction only to examine whether charge No. 3 was established or not. The Labour Court has clearly held that this charge was not established. Hence, according to Mr. Sinha, the Labour Court should have held that the dismissal of the workman was not justified, and ordered his reinstatement. 7. The crucial question for consideration at present is the correct interpretation of the operative portion of the order (quoted already) in Miscellaneous Judicial Case No. 1253 of 1964. Was it an open remand, by which the Labour Court was directed to re-examine the entire case against the workman, including all the six charges, or was it a limited remand directing the Labour Court to examine whether charge No. 3 was established or not? The remand order does not contain any restrictive words. The entire award of the previous Labour Court was set aside, and that Court was directed to make "a fresh decision in accordance with law." The normal rule of interpretation will be that the remand was an open remand, and the succeeding Labour Court could examine the case against the workman in respect of all the six charges. This view was taken by another Bench of this Court on the 2nd November, 1965. in C. W. J. C. No. 1106 of 1965 (Pat). It is true that this order was passed in limine without hearing the other side, and it may not bind the latter; but it has undoubtedly some advisory value so far as we are concerned. 8. The jurisdiction of a Bench of this Court to direct a fresh decision of the entire case against the workman cannot be doubted. It is true that this order was passed in limine without hearing the other side, and it may not bind the latter; but it has undoubtedly some advisory value so far as we are concerned. 8. The jurisdiction of a Bench of this Court to direct a fresh decision of the entire case against the workman cannot be doubted. It is true that Miscellaneous Judicial Case No. 1253 of 1964 was filed on behalf of the workman, and the only grievance of the workman then was as regards the finding of the previous Labour Court holding that charge No. 3 was established. Its findings in respect of the other charges were in favour of the workman. The judgment of the Bench does not show that the Counsel for the employer, while supporting the order of Shri K.N. Singh, urged that the findings of the said Labour Court in respect of the other charges were incorrect, and that they should also be examined by the Bench. There is no indication whatsoever in the judgment of the Bench on this question. But the power of this Court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution is not restricted by the strict rules of procedure contained in the Civil Procedure Code regarding the powers of an appellate Court. The entire record is brought to this Court, and, irrespective of the point taken by the petitioner, it is open to the Court, on scrutinising the entire record, to direct a fresh decision of the entire case. If, as urged by Mr. Sinha, the only point in controversy before that Bench was whether the finding of Shri K.N. Singh that charge No. 3 was, justified or not, the Bench would have limited the order of remand to this question only. Moreover, their own observations in paragraphs 2 and 3 of their judgment seem to indicate that there was no material on record to justify the finding that the workman was guilty of charge No. 3. If this was the only charge that was in controversy before the Bench, they could as well have, while reversing the order of Shri K.N. Singh, directed the reinstatement of the workman because he had been exonerated in respect of the other charges by that Court. 9. If this was the only charge that was in controversy before the Bench, they could as well have, while reversing the order of Shri K.N. Singh, directed the reinstatement of the workman because he had been exonerated in respect of the other charges by that Court. 9. Here, we are not concerned with the question as to whether it was proper or legal for the Bench to have passed an order of open remand in the circumstances of this case. We cannot obviously sit as a superior Court with a view to examine the propriety or legality of the order passed by that Bench. Our limited task is to construe the operative portion of the order, and, on such construction, it must be held that the remand was an open remand in consequence of which the entire reference was sent back to the new Presiding Officer, viz., Shri H. Sahai, for consideration of all the charges afresh. There was, therefore, no lack of jurisdiction on the part of Shri H. Sahai to examine the findings in respect of all the charges 10. The other questions raised in this application are essentially questions of fact, which Mr. Sinha, quite properly, did not press before us. 11. For these reasons, this application is dismissed with costs, hearing fee Rs. 100 payable to opposite party No. 2 only. K.B.N.Singh, J. 12 I agree.