R. GURURAJAN, J. ( 1 ) THE petitioner, an ex-employee of Karnataka State Road Transport corporation is seeking a direction to the 3rd respondent to inquire into an alleged fraudulent document at Annexure-D by the 5th respondent in terms of his representation at Annexure-G. The petitioner also seeks a direction to the 1st respondent to recover the losses caused to the Corporation by means of back wages and other incidental losses caused to the Corporation in the matter. ( 2 ) THE petitioner was an employee having worked for 19 years as a conductor. He was a member of a Union and he was often moving with the office-bearers of the Union during his free hours. His services were terminated on an earlier occasion and he was reinstated thereafter. Again in the year 1994 for the second time, his services were terminated on certain false charges resulting in dispute in I. D. No. 251 of 1994. The labour Court set aside the enquiry. The Corporation, with a view to avoid 50% of the wages, took him back to duty. The petitioner states that after completion of his duties on 10-12-1998, he submitted certain documents along with the waybill in respect of a depot. The 5th respondent submitted a false and frivolous report with regard to the waybill alleged to have been used by the petitioner. Based on the said report, the petitioner was kept under suspension without any allowance, whatsoever. Thereafter, a charge-sheet came to be issued on 25-1-1999 in terms of Annexure-B. Subsequently, an enquiry was held against the petitioner. The Corporation did not produce the original waybill before the enquiry proceedings. On the other hand, it produced only a xerox copy. The said document is a forged, fraudulent and concocted document, according to the petition averments. He demanded the Enquiry officer to place the original of the said document, which is the basis of the entire charges. His request was rejected. He sought for summoning of the waybill, which was rejected. He had also sought for change of the enquiry Officer on account of his losing faith, which again was rejected by the respondent. He demanded the Enquiry officer to place the original of the said document, which is the basis of the entire charges. His request was rejected. He sought for summoning of the waybill, which was rejected. He had also sought for change of the enquiry Officer on account of his losing faith, which again was rejected by the respondent. Thereafter, the petitioner filed a writ petition before this Court in W. P. No. 34120 of 2000, which was disposed of in terms of annexure-E. The petitioner also filed an affidavit as per Annexure-F. He has also submitted his representation to the 3rd respondent as per Annexure-G. The petitioner has filed Annexure-H, an interim report of the fact-finding committee on mismanagement and resultant losses. The petitioner, in these circumstances is before this Court seeking for various reliefs as mentioned earlier. ( 3 ) HEARD Sri K. Srinivasa, learned Counsel and perused the materials placed before this Court. ( 4 ) THE petitioner admittedly is seeking for an enquiry with regard to the document at Annexure-D. Admittedly, Annexure-D is a conductor's waybill which was the subject-matter of certain disciplinary proceedings, as I see from the materials placed before this Court. The petitioner's service has been terminated on certain charges based on Annexure-D by the Corporation in terms of an order dated 19-6-2001. The said termination is a subject-matter on the file of the 3rd Additional Labour Court in Reference No. 16 of 1987. In these circumstances, I am of the view that in view of the pendency of the proceedings before the Labour Court, this Court cannot pre-judge with regard to an allegation of a fraudulent document. It is always open to the petitioner to prove to the Labour court with regard to the legality or otherwise of the said document. When a competent Court has seized of a particular document, it is not appropriate for this Court to hold an enquiry with regard to that document in a pending matter. In these circumstances, I am not inclined to entertain this petition in view of the pendency of the dispute involving the very document before the Labour Court. However, it is open to the petitioner to prove his contention of fraud in the matter of Annexure-D before the Labour Court. In these circumstances, I am not inclined to entertain this petition in view of the pendency of the dispute involving the very document before the Labour Court. However, it is open to the petitioner to prove his contention of fraud in the matter of Annexure-D before the Labour Court. Since, the factual decision with regard to the disciplinary authority based on Annexure-D is already pending before the Labour Court, this Court cannot pre-empt the same at the request of the petitioner in this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of india. ( 5 ) IT is also necessary for me to refer to an earlier order of this Court in W. P. No. 34120 of 2000. A reading of the said order would show that a reference of this very waybill was made in the said proceedings. This Court noticed the said contention and ruled that the High Court should not pre-empt the said issue. In these circumstances, I decline to entertain this petition. But at the same time, I clarify that the petitioner is at liberty to urge his contention of the fraudulent nature of the document at Annexure-D, by appropriate pleadings and evidence before the Labour Court. ( 6 ) PETITION stands rejected with the above observations. --- *** --- .