JUDGMENT 1. Learned Advocates for the respective sides were heard at length on 06/01/2014 and again today. 2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally by consent of the parties. 3. The respondents were working as Branch Manager and Cashier respectively. A theft of Rs.22,21,381/- was committed in the Visapur Branch, Tq. Shrigonda of the petitioner Bank, using duplicate keys of the cash box. The original keys were alleged to be in the custody of the respondents and who handed over the keys to the Landlord of the premises. 4. The respondents were charged with having committed misconduct vide the charge sheet cum show cause notice dated 07/08/2010, which is at page No.42 of the petition paper book. The misconduct alleged to have been committed by them was under clause 22(iv), (ix), (xvii), (xxxvii) of the standing orders applicable to the petitioner establishment. 5. The said clauses at page No.70 of the petition paper book, read thus - 22(iv) Abetting, Conniving at, or attempting or committing of theft, fraud or dishonesty in connection with the business, property or affairs of the Bank or its customers, depositor and co-operative institutions affiliated to the Bank. 22(ix) Repeated breach of any law applicable to the Bank or any Rules made there under or of standing orders. 22(xvii) Habitual neglect of work or habitual or gross negligence or negligence involving or likely to involve the Bank in serious loss. 22(xxxvii) And any other act which is prejudicial to the interest of the Bank. 6. Though clause No.22(iv) consists of different contingencies, it is apparent that the petitioner had invoked part of the clause to the extent of dishonesty in connection with the business, property or affairs of the Bank. 7. After conclusion of the enquiry, a second show cause notice was issued to the respondents and after hearing them, they were dismissed from service w.e.f. 08/02/2012 by way of punishment. 8. The respondents, being aggrieved by such dismissal from service, filed complaint U.L.P. No.2/2012 before the learned Labour Court, Ahmednagar alongwith an application for interim relief. 9. Since the issue of fairness of the enquiry and the findings of the Enquiry Officer were under consideration in light of the challenge posed by the respondents, the Labour Court, Ahmednagar delivered its part-I order dated 08/04/2013, which is at page No. 151 of the petition paper book. 9. Since the issue of fairness of the enquiry and the findings of the Enquiry Officer were under consideration in light of the challenge posed by the respondents, the Labour Court, Ahmednagar delivered its part-I order dated 08/04/2013, which is at page No. 151 of the petition paper book. The domestic enquiry was held to be conducted in consonance with the principles of natural justice and was thus upheld. Findings of the Enquiry Officer, based on the oral and documentary evidence, were held to be sustainable. In short, the challenge to the enquiry and the contention that the findings are perverse were negated. 10. The respondents preferred revision U.L.P. No.27/2013 before the Industrial Court, Ahmednagar for challenging the Part I order. By the impugned judgment dated 03/10/2013, the Industrial Court set aside the Part I order of the Labour Court and concluded that the findings of the Enquiry Officer are perverse and unsustainable. It is this judgment that has been impugned in this petition by the petitioner. 11. With the assistance of the learned Advocates for the respective sides, I have gone through the entire petition paper book. 12. The Labour Court, while dealing with issue No.1 and 2, has considered the admission of the respondents of having handed over the keys of the cash box of the bank to the Landlord and concluded that this amounted to an act of negligence as well as dishonesty. 13. The respondents took exception to such conclusions of the Labour Court and assailed the same before the Industrial Court in its revision petition contending that there is no charge of dishonesty levelled upon the respondent. 14. The Industrial Court, in its findings, has criticized the conclusions of the Labour Court and has concluded that when the charge of dishonesty was not levelled upon the respondents, the Labour Court committed a patent error by concluding that dishonesty is proved against the respondents. Based on this solitary ground, the Industrial Court considered the entire evidence recorded in the enquiry threadbare as if the Industrial Court was dealing with an appeal and set aside the Part I order of the Labour Court. The findings of the Enquiry Officer were held to be perverse by the impugned judgment. 15. Based on this solitary ground, the Industrial Court considered the entire evidence recorded in the enquiry threadbare as if the Industrial Court was dealing with an appeal and set aside the Part I order of the Labour Court. The findings of the Enquiry Officer were held to be perverse by the impugned judgment. 15. From the entire judgment, it appears that the Industrial Court has not given a single glance to the last line of the charge sheet dated 07/08/2010, which mentions the clauses of the standing orders that are invoked by the petitioner employer to allege that the respondents have committed a misconduct. Similarly, the Industrial Court apparently has not gone into clause 22(iv) of the standing orders applicable to the petitioner bank, which clearly mentions of dishonesty in connection with the business, property or affairs of the Bank. 16. Nevertheless, dishonesty needs to be inferred. So also, clause 22(iv) defines dishonesty to mean a misconduct. I, therefore, find that the impugned judgment suffers from lack of application of mind and deserves to be quashed. 17. It appears from the Part I order of the Labour Court that the right of the respondents to make out a case of dis-proportionality of punishment is affected. 18. Every employee, based on the contentions made in the complaint, can have the right to demonstrate that the punishment awarded is shockingly disproportionate to the gravity and seriousness of the misconduct proved against him. 19. The gravity of the charges proved against an employee can not be scrutinized or considered while delivering the Part I order. It is Trite Law that when Part I order on the fairness of the enquiry and the findings of the Enquiry Officer is being passed, the gravity and seriousness of the misconduct is not a matter to be taken into consideration. As such, the right of the respondents to establish a case on the remaining issues which includes the issue of dis-proportionality of the punishment can not be foreclosed. 20. In the light of the above, the petition is being partly allowed with the following directions - (a) The impugned judgment of the Industrial Court dated 03/10/2013 delivered in revision U.L.P. No.27/2013 is quashed and set aside and the revision stands dismissed. (b) The Labour Court shall proceed to decide rest of the issues in the pending complaint U.L.P. No.2/2012. In the light of the above, the petition is being partly allowed with the following directions - (a) The impugned judgment of the Industrial Court dated 03/10/2013 delivered in revision U.L.P. No.27/2013 is quashed and set aside and the revision stands dismissed. (b) The Labour Court shall proceed to decide rest of the issues in the pending complaint U.L.P. No.2/2012. (c) The remaining issues before the Labour Court shall be decided in accordance with Law and on their own merit without being influenced by the observations of the Labour Court in its Part I order or any observations made by this Court in this order. (d) Right of the respondents to establish their case on the dis-proportionality of the punishment needs to be considered by the Labour Court on its own merit and in accordance with Law. (e) In the event of the complaint of the respondents being dismissed on its final adjudication, the result of this petition and the quashing and setting aside of the impugned judgment of the Industrial Court shall not come in way of the respondents in preferring a comprehensive challenge under Section 44 of the M.R.T.U. and P.U.L.P. Act 1971. (f) No order as to costs. 21. Rule is made absolute in the above terms with no order as to costs.