ORDER : Sanjay Yadav, J. 1. With consent of learned counsel for the parties the matter is finally heard. 2. Petitioner takes exception to order dated 7.3.2016 passed by Central Government Industrial Tribunal cum Labour Court (the Labour Court); whereby, while dwelling on the preliminary issue as to whether the enquiry conducted against respondent workman is proper and legal, the Labour Court has held it to be vitiated and has directed the petitioner to prove misconduct alleged against the workman by adducing evidence. The Labour Court is in seisen with under Section 10 of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 as to whether the compulsory retirement of respondent workman is proper and if not what relief he is entitled for? 3. That, compulsory retirement was in furtherance to departmental enquiry initiated against the petitioner wherein the charges levelled against the petitioner were: "Charge-I is about Gross Misconduct - irregular in attendance, during May 86 to Oct 90. It its Statement of imputation of misconduct or Misbehaviour, it has alleged that the said Shri R.K. Jha was very irregular in attending his duty during the period from May 86 to Oct 1990 as per details shown thereunder. In its Annexure-III Srl. No.5, details of leave availed by Shri R.K. Jha, S.K. Stores. Leave record as produced (in Page 19-21) in incomplete and vague, as because, the reasons for taking leave, whether pre-recommended or post-recommended or non-recommended and whether pre-sanctioned, post sanctioned or non-sanctioned leave, have not been mentioned. Details of leave granted/presence/absence of the workers are published in Factory Order Part-II during the Period from May 86 to Oct. 90 have not been produced to show that the said Shri R.K. Jha mostly have taken sanctioned leave on genuine reason of his father's illness and hospitalisation at Military Hospital, Jabalpur. Absent without leave or unauthorise absence may cause Misconduct. Since, the applicant workman remained on granted leave, no misconduct committed by him. Charge - II is against negligence of duty - failure to maintain proper record/up-date posting of Accounting documents such as Receipt, Issue Vrs & Demend Notes etc. of Stationary items held under his charge prior to 22.10.90 caused heavy shortages in 19 Stationary items during his charge/custody, which has resulted huge loss to the state to the tune of Rs.1,45,015.67. In its Annexure-III listed and produced 5 documents. of Stationary items held under his charge prior to 22.10.90 caused heavy shortages in 19 Stationary items during his charge/custody, which has resulted huge loss to the state to the tune of Rs.1,45,015.67. In its Annexure-III listed and produced 5 documents. But, Charge about heavy shortage of 19 items and loss to the tune of Rs.1,45,015.67 is unfounded and vague, as because, neither the list of those 19 items with quantities, nor its procurement vouchers, nor accounting of its price/cost amounting to Rs.1,45,015.67, have been shown in any document and annexed in Annexure-III of the Charge Memorandum." 4. The departmental enquiry culminated into the order of compulsory retirement as the charges levelled against the petitioner were proved. The dispute was raised by the respondent workman which has been referred to the Labour Court for adjudication. As one of the issues raised by the workman was that he was not afforded proper opportunity of defence in departmental enquiry, the Labour Court formulated the preliminary issue as to whether departmental enquiry conducted against the respondent workman was proper and legal. While answering the issue the Labour Court held : "7. The record of enquiry further shows that the management examined other two witnesses Ramesh Kumar and G.S. Burman. Their names were not appearing in the list of documents given in the Annexure IV. "Those witnesses were cross-examined without any grievances. Said ground cannot be accepted to hold enquiry conducted against workman is unfair. However, as workman was denied permission to cross-examine management's witnesses Shri Kathi and Bhimsingh while granting permission to engage Defence Assistant, enquiry conducted against workman is not proper and legal. For above reasons, I record my finding in above Point in Negative." 5. It is this finding which is being taken exception of by petitioner employer on the ground that proper opportunity was afforded to the respondent workman and it is respondent workman who did not participate in the proceedings; more particularly, when the prosecution witnesses, viz., Pannalal Kathi and Shri Bhimsingh were examined on 18.8.1994 and 6.10.1994. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner has led this Court through the progress sheet prepared by the enquiry officer during the process of departmental enquiry. It is urged that after issuance of charge sheet the matter was posted before the Enquiry Officer on 13.5.1994, 14.6.1994, 4.7.1994 and 18.7.1994. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner has led this Court through the progress sheet prepared by the enquiry officer during the process of departmental enquiry. It is urged that after issuance of charge sheet the matter was posted before the Enquiry Officer on 13.5.1994, 14.6.1994, 4.7.1994 and 18.7.1994. As the respondent workman did not appear on these dates, the matter was adjourned and was then posted on 9.8.1994, when the respondent workman appeared, the matter was directed to be taken up on 12.8.1994. On said date a date was fixed for 18.8.1994 for recording the evidence of prosecution witnesses. On 18.8.1994 as the respondent workman did not appear, the prosecution witness was examined ex-parte and released. The matter was thereafter posted on 5.9.1994; however, as no proceeding could take place the matter was then fixed on 29.9.1994. The petitioner was informed vide communication dated 21.9.1994. As the respondent workman did not appear the matter was next posted on 6.10.1994 and information to that effect was sent to the respondent workman vide communication dated 30.9.1994, which was duly received by respondent workman on 30.9.1994 (Annexure P-6). On 6.10.1994 since the respondent workman did not appear, prosecution witness (P.W. 2) was examined ex-parte and released. 7. It is contended that on 7.10.1994 the respondent workman filed an application stating therein the reasons which prevented him from appearing on 6.10.1994 and sought leave of the Enquiry Officer to engage a Defence Counsel. 8. Responding to the said request the respondent workman was informed and called upon to appear on 18.10.1994 vide communication dated 11.10.1994. It is urged on behalf of the petitioner that it was specifically made clear to respondent workman that he will not be allowed to cross-examine the prosecution witnesses who were already examined ex-parte ^^ftl vfHk;ksx xokg dks igys tkap fd;k tk pqdk gS mudks ØkWl ,Xtkfeu djus dh vuqefr ugha nh tk;sxh ysfdu vki fyf[kr esa cpko dj ldrs gSaA vkSj cdk;k vfHk;ksx xokg dks ØkWl ,XtkfeUM dj ldrs gSaA** It is urged on behalf of the petitioner that respondent workman did not raise any protest against the communication dated 11.10.1994. However, he did not appear on the said date as a result whereof vide communication dated 4.4.1995 the respondent workman was called upon to appear on 12.4.1995 with a caution that if he again fails to attend the Court of Enquiry the hearing shall be concluded ex-parte. However, he did not appear on the said date as a result whereof vide communication dated 4.4.1995 the respondent workman was called upon to appear on 12.4.1995 with a caution that if he again fails to attend the Court of Enquiry the hearing shall be concluded ex-parte. The respondent workman did not appear. 9. On 14.4.1995, the respondent workman was informed that prosecution has completed and closed its case and called upon the respondent workman to make the defence statement either orally or in writing. The communication was received by the respondent workman on 18.4.1995. Thereafter vide communication dated 9.6.1995 the Enquiry Officer requested the respondent workman to appear before Court of Enquiry on 7.7.1995 failing which he was informed that matter will be closed. It is submitted that again vide communication dated 17.7.1995 the respondent workman was informed that the mater is posed on 28.7.1995 for his general examination. Thereafter the matter was closed and the brief of Presenting Officer was sent to the respondent workman on 22.9.1995 and on 16.10.1995. As the Defence Brief was not received the matter was concluded on 4.11.1995 and the Enquiry Officer furnished his enquiry report. 10. It is urged on behalf of the petitioner that the Labour Court has glossed over these facts on record and has erred in holding that the workman was denied permission to cross-examine management witnesses Shri Pannalal Kathi and Bhimsingh while granting permission to engage Defence Counsel. It is urged that respondent workman was given repeated opportunities to participate in the proceedings; however, the respondent workman did not avail the same. 11. As to non cross-examination of prosecution witnesses who were examined on 18.8.1994 and 6.10.1994, it is contended that the petitioner of his own volition has not availed the said opportunity and for that management cannot be held responsible. It is on these grounds petitioner seeks indulgence. 12. Learned counsel appearing for respondent workman, however, supports the conclusion arrived at by the Labour Court. It is urged that the Labour Court having observed that the respondent workman is being deprived of cross-examination of material witness has rightly held that the enquiry stood vitiated. 13. Learned counsel appearing for respondent workman; however, does not dispute the proceedings as recorded by the Enquiry Officer. It is urged that the Labour Court having observed that the respondent workman is being deprived of cross-examination of material witness has rightly held that the enquiry stood vitiated. 13. Learned counsel appearing for respondent workman; however, does not dispute the proceedings as recorded by the Enquiry Officer. As also there is no answer to the fact that answering respondent after he appeared on 12.8.1994 being well aware of the next date, i.e., 18.8.1994 when the prosecution witness, i.e., P.W. 1, Pannalal Kathi was to be examined, did not appear on said date. There is no explanation tendered by respondent workman as to what prevented him from appearing him on 18.8.1994. Even thereafter despite the respondent workman being aware of the proceedings dated 6.10.1994, did not participate in the proceedings. Instead on 7.10.1994 gave reasons for his non-appearance. Evidently, respondent workman, if he was in personal difficulty on 6.10.1994 could have informed the Enquiry Officer of said date. However, there is no such information given by the respondent workman. Furthermore, there was no protest on behalf of respondent workman against the information, that he will not be permitted to cross-examine witnesses examined earlier. 14. Reliance is placed on behalf of parties on the decisions by Supreme Court in D.P. Maheshwari v. Delhi Administration and others [ (1983) 4 SCC 293 ], K.L. Tripathi v. State Bank of India and others [ (1984) 1 SCC 43 ], Iswarlal Mohanlal Thakkar v. Paschim Gujarat VIJ Company Ltd. and another [(2014) 2 SCC (L&S) 291], Nelton India and others v. Bipin V. Patil [(2006) SCC (L&S) 1679], Essen Deinki v. Rajiv Kumar [(2003) SCC (L&S) 13], K.V.S. Ram v. Bangalore Metropolitan Transport Corporation [(2016) 1 SCC (L&S) 308] and Bank of India v. Apurba Kumar Saha [ (1994) 2 SCC 615 ]. Careful perusal of the judgment relied upon by the parties reflects that the same relate to the scope of jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India that in case if the findings by Industrial Tribunal or Labour Court is based on proper appraisal of evidence, the same are not open to cause interference in a petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India. There cannot be any cavil in respect of proposition of law laid down in the decision relied on by the parties regarding scope of jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. There cannot be any cavil in respect of proposition of law laid down in the decision relied on by the parties regarding scope of jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. However, in the case at hand as observed, the Labour Court has ignored the vital facts on record while arriving at a conclusion that the respondent workman was not afforded the proper opportunity of hearing. The Labour Court having ignored these facts has resulted in the perverse finding which being perverse is not interfered with. 15. In view whereof it is the respondent workman who has to blame himself for not availing opportunity. The conclusion arrived at by the Labour Court without adverting to these facts cannot be given stamp of approval as the same are cryptic. 16. Consequently, while setting aside the impugned order, it is held that the workman was afforded ample opportunity of hearing and there was no violation of principle of natural justice. The petition is disposed of finally in above terms.