Short Note : The petitioner was holding a permanent post of conductor in Gwalior Depot of the M.P. S.R.T.C. He was given a charge-sheet whereby it was alleged that the petitioner was guilty of major misconduct, as he carried passengers without ticket with a dishonest intention of misappropriation of fare of the Corporation. The enquiry was conducted by the Manager, Divisional Office Gwalior who passed an order of dismissal of the petitioner. The petitioner submitted an application before the Labour Court under section 61 of the M. P. Industrial Relations Act, challenging the dismissal order and enquiry on several grounds. The Labour Court vide its order dated 11-6-1975 reinstated the petitioner, but without back wages. The Industrial Court, by its order dated 11-11-1975. set aside the order of the Labour Court and held that the Domestic Enquiry was perfectly valid and there was no ground justifying interference with the order passed by the Domestic Tribunal. 2. Held: The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted first that the Member Judge of the Industrial Court has exceeded the revisional jurisdiction and, therefore, the order passed, being without jurisdiction should be set aside. To appreciate the submission made by the learned counsel, this Court will have to see section 66 of the M. P. Industrial Relations Act, 1960. This Court is to see whether the learned Industrial Court has interferred in the finding of fact. If this Court sees the judgment of tf1e learned Member Judge of the Industrial Court, it is seen that it has specifically mentioned in paragraph 4 that merely because the proceedings of the enquiry were not produced in the Court, therefore the enquiry is vitiated is not a valid ground. This Court also agrees that when certain relevant documents (Ex. D-1 to D-6) of Domestic Enquiry were admitted by the petitioner, then merely not filing the proceedings will not render the enquiry illegal. Nandkumar Singh v. State Industrial Court Indore and others, 1977 JLJ 545 , relied on. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted before this Court that there are certain findings given by the Learned Labour Court in its orders dated 11-3-1974 and 11-6-1975 and because these findings are of fact, therefore the learned Member Judge of the Industrial Court had no jurisdiction to interfere in these findings. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted before this Court that there are certain findings given by the Learned Labour Court in its orders dated 11-3-1974 and 11-6-1975 and because these findings are of fact, therefore the learned Member Judge of the Industrial Court had no jurisdiction to interfere in these findings. The learned counsel for the non-petitioner, submitted that the Learned Labour Judge has acted as a Court of appeal and has come to certain conclusions and gave certain findings of facts. In fact, the Labour Court had no power to interfere in the findings given in the Domestic Enquiry and because they have exceeded their jurisdiction, therefore there findings of fact will not be binding on the Industrial Court and if the learned Industrial Court comes to the conclusion that the findings given by the learned Labour Court are perverse or beyond its power, certainly the Industrial Court can set aside the order. It is correct to say that the Labour Court is not a Court of appeal. So looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the opinion that the order passed by the Industrial Court is correct and no interference is called for under Articles 226 and 227 of Constitution of India. Tata Oil Mills, Co. Ltd. and Workmen and another, 1963 (6) FLR 257. Workmen of P.T.O.R. v. The Management, AIR 1973 SC 1227 , Vaidyanath v. M.P.S.R.T.C. Bairagarh and other, 1975 JLJ 297 , relied on. Petition dismissed.