JUDGMENT : 1. This writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenges an Award dated March 13, 1990 made by the Industrial Tribunal, Kolhapur, in Reference (IT) No. 1 of 1988 under the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. 2. The petitioner is a Trade Union and represents two employees, P. V. Chavan and M. S. Bhalekar, who were working as Fitter and Watchman, respectively, in the service of the First Respondent. Chavan and Bhalekar were served with charge-sheets dated October 26, 1986 in which it was alleged that, on August 24, 1986, Chavan had taken the private jeep of one Chandrakant Salokhe, a Cooperator of the Kolhapur Municipal Corporation, and went for his private work, after which he brought the said jeep to the petrol pump within the workshop belonging to the First Respondent and he filled the fuel tank with 25 liters of diesel. Thus, it was alleged that he had misappropriated dishonestly the property of the First Respondent. As far as Bhalekar was concerned, it was alleged that, though he was a watchman on duty at the gate of the said workshop, he failed to prevent the jeep going out with diesel filled in without authorisation. A detailed enquiry was held and the Enquiry Officer found Chavan and Bhalekar guilty of the charges alleged against them. As a consequences of the findings of the enquiry, by a final Order made on October 30, 1987, Bhalekar was reverted from the original post of Gate Keeper to the post of Watchman and his seniority was also changed, so that he became the junior-most in the reverted category. He was also permanently debarred from all further promotions. As far as Chavan was concerned, he was reverted from the post of Fitter to the post of Helper, made the junior-most helper and permanently debarred from promotions. An industrial dispute was raised with regard to the punishments meted out to the two employees. The industrial dispute resulted in Reference (IT) No. 1 of 1988 being made to the Industrial Tribunal at Kolhapur. The Tribunal took up for consideration, in the first place, the issue as to the legality and propriety of the domestic enquiry and held that the enquiry was fair and proper and that the findings recorded therein were not perverse. The industrial dispute resulted in Reference (IT) No. 1 of 1988 being made to the Industrial Tribunal at Kolhapur. The Tribunal took up for consideration, in the first place, the issue as to the legality and propriety of the domestic enquiry and held that the enquiry was fair and proper and that the findings recorded therein were not perverse. On the question of punishment, however, the Tribunal was of the view that the punishment of permanently debarring the employees from promotion was unjustified and set aside the said part of the other, though the Tribunal did not interfere with the reversion of the two employees and placing them at the lowest in the seniority list of the reverted category. It is this Award which is impugned in the present Writ Petition. 3. After having heard learned Advocates on both sides, it appears to me that there was some misapprehension in the mind of the First Respondent as to the power enabling it to impose punishment in disciplinary jurisdiction. It was assumed by the First Respondent that it had powers to impose punishment such as reversion and reduction in rank under the Maharashtra Civil Service (Conduct Rules), 1979. Shri Bukhari, learned Advocate appearing for the Petitioners contends that the services of the employees of the First Respondent are governed by the Model Standing Orders framed under the Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1946. He places reliance on the fact that, in the charge-sheet itself, there is reference to Model Standing Orders. Shri Sawant, learned Advocate appearing for the First Respondent, maintains that a Notification has been issued by the Government of Maharashtra stating that all the employees of the First Respondent are governed by the Maharashtra Civil Service (Conduct Rules), 1979 and, therefore by virtue of Section 13-B of the Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, nothing in the said Act or the Model Standing Orders framed under the said Act would apply to the employees of the First Respondent. It is unfortunate that there is no material placed on the record of the trial Court, from which this issue could have been resolved, one way or the other. In my view, to satisfactorily resolve this issue, it would be necessary to remand the matter to the Industrial Tribunal. 4. It is unfortunate that there is no material placed on the record of the trial Court, from which this issue could have been resolved, one way or the other. In my view, to satisfactorily resolve this issue, it would be necessary to remand the matter to the Industrial Tribunal. 4. Hence, by consent of the parties, the following order is passed :- (a) The impugned Award of the Industrial Tribunal, Kolhapur, is quashed and set aside. The Reference (IT) No. 1 of 1988 is restored to the file of the Industrial Tribunal, Kolhapur. (b) The Tribunal shall first decide whether the two concerned employees are governed by the provisions of the Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1946 and the Model Standing Orders therein or whether they are governed by the provisions of the Maharashtra Civil Service (Conduct Rules), 1979 ? (c) The Tribunal shall thereafter decide the validity of the domestic enquiry in the light of the applicable rules. (d) The Tribunal shall determine the legality, validity and propriety of the punishment in the light of the applicable rules of service. (e) The Tribunal shall thereafter decide appropriate relief, if any, to be granted. Rule accordingly made absolute. No order as to costs.