ORDER : B. VEERAPPA, J. 1. The Managing Director of the Bangalore Metropolitan Transport Corporation has filed this present Writ Petition for a Writ of Certiorari to quash the order in ID No. 72/2006 dated 11.9.2009, at Annexure-C, the order on IA No. 10 dated 21.5.2013 at Annexure-E and also the order dated 03.07.2013 at Annexure-F, passed by the Presiding Officer, I Addl. Labour Court, Bangalore, allowing the claim statement in part and the order of the Second party i.e., Disciplinary Authority dated 21.6.2004 in No. 560/04 is set aside with a direction to reinstate the first party into service with continuity of service and other consequential benefits and also held that the workman is entitled to 25% of the back wages from the date of his dismissal till the date of his reinstatement into service and his prayer for full back wages is rejected. 2. It is the case of the Petitioner-Corporation that the respondent-workman was working as a driver. While applying for the post of driver in the Corporation, he submitted Transfer Certificate bearing No. 73/78-79 and Caste Certificate No. 8302/87-88 issued by the Tahsildar, Kollegal. Thereby, he got selected to the post of driver. Later the Petitioner-Corporation referred the said Transfer Certificate for security investigation to enquire the genuineness of the certificate. The Security Officer, who investigated the matter, submitted a report stating that the Transfer Certificate produced by the respondent-workman is a fake one. On the basis of the said report the Disciplinary Authority issued Articles of charges. The respondent-workman replied to the said Articles of charges. Not satisfied with the reply, Disciplinary Authority referred the matter for enquiry and appointed an Enquiry Officer to conduct enquiry. 3. The Enquiry Officer, after conducted a detailed enquiry and submitted report holding that the charges levelled against the respondent are proved. Thereafter on the basis of the report and after considering the material on record, Disciplinary Authority by an order dated 21.06.2004 dismissed the respondent from service. Being aggrieved by the order of dismissal, the respondent has raised an industrial dispute under Section 10(4A) of the Industrial Disputes Act, challenging the order of dismissal passed by the Disciplinary Authority. 4. The I Addl. Labour Court framed a preliminary issue with respect to the fairness of the Domestic Enquiry. Accordingly, by an order dated 11.09.2009 held that the Domestic Enquiry was not fair and proper. 4. The I Addl. Labour Court framed a preliminary issue with respect to the fairness of the Domestic Enquiry. Accordingly, by an order dated 11.09.2009 held that the Domestic Enquiry was not fair and proper. Thereafter the petitioner-Corporation filed an interlocutory application No. 10 under Section 11 of the I.D. Act, seeking permission to adduce further evidence. The said application came to be rejected on 21.05.2013. Thereafter the Labour Court adjudicated the matter and by the impugned award has set aside the dismissal order passed by the Disciplinary Authority and directed the petitioner-Corporation for reinstatement of the workman with continuity of service and 25% of back wages from the date of his dismissal till the date of his reinstatement into service. Hence, the present Writ Petition is filed. 5. The respondent-workman has not filed any Writ Petition for denying full back wages. 6. I have heard the learned counsel for both parties to the lis. 7. Smt. H.R. Renuka, learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended that the Labour Court erred in passing the impugned award in interfering with the order passed by the Disciplinary Authority, mainly on the ground that the Domestic enquiry' held was not fair and proper. The reasons assigned by the Labour Court reversing the finding of the Enquiry Officer are contrary to the materials on record. She further contended that the Labour Court erred in holding that the name of the school mentioned in the Transfer Certificate as per Ex.M.14 and the name of the school mentioned in the letter Ex.P.15 issued by the Head Mistress of the School are not one and the same. She further contended that the Labour Court erred in rejecting LA No. 10 filed by the petitioner-Corporation seeking permission to adduce evidence of the Head Mistress, who had issued Ex.M. 15. If the Labour Court had permitted the petitioner to adduce evidence of the Head Mistress, who had issued Ex.P. 15, the petitioner-Corporation would have clarified the doubt raised by the Labour Court regarding the name of the School existing in the Transfer Certificate-Ex.M.14 and the letter-Ex.M15 issued by the Head Mistress. She further contended that the Caste Certificate-Ex.M.13 has not considered by the Labour Court, while considering the Transfer Certificate issued by the Head Mistress of the school and come to a specific conclusion that the certificates submitted by the respondent-workman is a fake one. She further contended that the Caste Certificate-Ex.M.13 has not considered by the Labour Court, while considering the Transfer Certificate issued by the Head Mistress of the school and come to a specific conclusion that the certificates submitted by the respondent-workman is a fake one. The Labour Court has not given sufficient opportunity to the petitioner-Corporation to put forth its case. Therefore, she has sought for setting aside the impugned orders passed by the Labour Court. 8. Per contra, Sri. S.B. Mukkannappa, learned counsel for the R1 as well as the learned HCGP for R2 and 3 sought to justify the impugned award passed by the Labour Court and contended that the Labour Court rightly held that the domestic enquiry held by the Corporation was not fair and proper and ultimately, come to the conclusion that the impugned order passed by the Disciplinary Authority is not proper and the Labour Court justified in directing reinstatement of the first party, therefore, sought for dismissal of the writ petition. 9. This court by an order dated 16.6.2014 issued notice to the respondent and directed to reinstate the respondent subject to the result of the Writ Petition. It is not in dispute by both the parties that the respondent-workman is now working in the Petitioner-Corporation. 10. It is also not in dispute that the respondent-workman was appointed as a driver in the petitioner Corporation. According to the petitioner-Corporation, respondent-workman applied for the post of driver. He submitted Transfer Certificate bearing No. 73/78-79 and Caste Certificate bearing No. 8302/87-88 issued by the Tahsildar and he got selected for the said post. Subsequently, the said Transfer Certificate was referred to the Security Investigating officer for verification and came to know that the certificates produced by the workman was a fake certificates. On the basis of the same, domestic enquiry was initiated. The Enquiry Officer submitted a report and held that the Articles of charges were proved. Thereafter, Disciplinary Authority considering the entire material on record and held that the charges were proved and dismissed the petitioner from service. 11. It is also not in dispute that the Labour Court while considering the preliminary issue of the Domestic enquiry, by an order dated 11.9.2009 held that the domestic enquiry was not fair and proper. Thereafter, Disciplinary Authority considering the entire material on record and held that the charges were proved and dismissed the petitioner from service. 11. It is also not in dispute that the Labour Court while considering the preliminary issue of the Domestic enquiry, by an order dated 11.9.2009 held that the domestic enquiry was not fair and proper. It is also not in dispute that during the pendency of the adjudication of ID No. 72/2006, Petitioner-Corporation has filed an application under Section 11 of the I.D. Act to recall the order dated 11.04.2012 to lead further evidence. The said application came to be rejected by the Labour Court on the ground that the Corporation would have taken proper steps to examine relevant witnesses. The same was not done. Therefore, the said application came to be rejected. 12. The main grievance of the petitioner in the present writ petition is that in order to prove the said certificates produced by the respondent-workman, while obtaining selection to the post of driver, the Labour Court has not given proper opportunity to the petitioner to adduce evidence and rejected the application and ultimately, the Labour Court was proceeded to set aside the dismissal order passed by the Disciplinary Authority without giving sufficient opportunity to the petitioner-Corporation to put forth their case. 13. The Labour Court while passing the impugned award on 03.07.2013 has not provided an opportunity to the Management to examine the Head Mistress of the concerned school, who has issued Certificates to examine whether the said certificates were issued by the Head Mistress of the concerned school or not. M.W.2 has stated on oath that he visited the Tahsildar Office on 19.9.1989 and found that the certificates produced by the first party workman were bogus. On enquiry with the Head Mistress of the Middle School and verification of the school records, the Head Mistress who had issued the letter, stating that the entries in the transfer Certificate produced by the first party are not tallying with the entries in the register and the first party was not admitted to that school. Ex.M. 14-Transfer Certificate said to have been produced by the first party-workman. The same is a Xerox copy. Ex.M. 14-Transfer Certificate said to have been produced by the first party-workman. The same is a Xerox copy. In the transfer certificate name of the school is mentioned as Government Kannada Practising Middle School, Mysore, whereas, MW2 has stated that he visited the school by name Government Practicing Kannada Middle School, Mysore, situated at Nazarabad. The Labour Court expressed doubt about these institutions are one and the same is not at all clear. Therefore, the Labour Court was of the considered opinion that the Corporation has not examined the Head Mistress of the school Training College situated at Nazarabad to believe what she has stated in the letter which is marked at Ex.M. 15 is correct. Ex.M 13 is the caste certificate. The name of the workman stated to be of Kaniyan caste, which is ST community. Whether the certificate issued by the previous Tahsildar is cancelled by the caste verification Committee is not forthcoming. When the Labour Court expressed doubt about the certificate issued by the Head Mistress. The Labour Court ought to have given an opportunity to the Management to adduce the evidence of the Head Mistress. The same was not considered and rejected the application on 21.05.2013, filed by the petitioner-Managing Director. 14. The/materials placed on record clearly indicates that the workman has relied on the Transfer Certificate issued by the Head Mistress of the School (Government Kannada Practising Middle School, Mysore). The application is filed by the Corporation to examine the Head Mistress of the School, who has issued the certificate in favour of the workman. Unfortunately, the Labour Court has rejected the said application and proceeded to pass the impugned award expressing doubt about the genuineness of the certificate issued by the Head Mistress of the two schools and come to a conclusion that it is not clear whether the Government Kannada Practising Middle School, Training College, Mysore, situated at Nazarabad and Government Kannada Practising Middle School, Mysore are one and the same is not clear. That being so, Labour Court ought to have given an opportunity to the Petitioner-Corporation to examine the concerned Head Mistress to know the truth. The same has not been done. Therefore, the matter requires reconsideration by the I Addl. Labour Court after giving sufficient opportunity to both parties to adduce additional evidence and to produce material documents, if any. 15. That being so, Labour Court ought to have given an opportunity to the Petitioner-Corporation to examine the concerned Head Mistress to know the truth. The same has not been done. Therefore, the matter requires reconsideration by the I Addl. Labour Court after giving sufficient opportunity to both parties to adduce additional evidence and to produce material documents, if any. 15. For the reasons stated above, Writ Petition is allowed, the impugned order passed by the Presiding Officer, I Addl. Labour Court, Bangalore, on 21.5.2013 on I.A. No. 10 made in ID No. 72/2006 at Annexure-'E' and the award dated 03.07.2013 made in ID No. 72/2006 at Annexure-F, are hereby set aside and the matter is remanded to the I Addl. Labour Court for reconsideration of the matter after giving sufficient opportunity to both parties to adduce additional evidence and produce any material documents, if any and pass fresh award in accordance with law. 16. In pursuance of the interim passed by this court on 16.6.2014, the respondent-workman has been reinstated in the petitioner-Corporation and he shall continue in the post held by him till the disposal of the dispute between the parties before the Labour Court. 17. Ordered accordingly.