JUDGMENT : P.R. Bora, J. 1. Since order passed by the Industrial Court Aurangabad in Revision ULP No.70/2015 decided on 9th February, 2018 is challenged in both these writ petitions, I heard the common arguments in both these writ petitions and I deem it appropriate to decide these writ petitions by a common reasoning. 2. Writ Petition No.12708/2018 is filed by employee viz. Vasant Kishanrao Deshpande; whereas Writ Petition No.5514/2018 is filed by Maharashtra State Electricity Transmission Company Ltd. (for short MSETCL). 3. Few facts, which are relevant for decision of these petitions can be stated, in brief, as under, - a. Petitioner in WP No.12708/02018, who is herein after refereed as an employee, was serving with the petitioner -MSETCL company, which is herein after referred to as employer, as Head Clerk. On 27th December, 1999, a charge sheet was issued to the employee, containing eight charges therein. Misconduct was also alleged in respect of mis-appropriation of the amount. An inquiry was conducted by appointing an independent Inquiry Officer. b. It is the contention of employer that in conducting the inquiry, the principles of natural justice were strictly followed and due opportunity was given to the employee at every stage of inquiry; whereas it is the contention of the employee that the inquiry was conducted in utter disregard of the principles of natural justice and no due opportunity was given to him to defend himself. c. The Inquiry Officer submitted his report of inquiry holding the employee guilty of the charges levelled against him. There upon, the Disciplinary Authority has, after giving opportunity to the employee, imposed punishment of dismissal from service. Aggrieved by the order so passed, the employee preferred a Complaint being Complaint (ULP) No. 67/2013 before the Labour Court at Aurangabad. The contentions raised in the said complaint (ULP) were resisted by the employer by filing a detailed written statement on its behalf. d. Issues were framed by the learned Labour court and the matter was posted for hearing. Aggrieved by the order so passed, the employee preferred a Complaint being Complaint (ULP) No. 67/2013 before the Labour Court at Aurangabad. The contentions raised in the said complaint (ULP) were resisted by the employer by filing a detailed written statement on its behalf. d. Issues were framed by the learned Labour court and the matter was posted for hearing. The learned Labour court had also framed the issues, "whether the complainant proves that the inquiry conducted against him was illegal, improper and void"; and "whether the findings of the Inquiry Officer were perverse." The material on record also reveals that the learned Labour court has expressed that the aforesaid two issues will be tried as preliminary issues and the findings on the same issues will be recorded first, however, the employer and the employee, both, jointly filed a pursis making a request to the learned Judge of the Labour Court to decide both the issues simultaneously. Before the Labour Court, necessary evidence was adduced on behalf of the employee as well as employer. After having assessed the evidence brought before him, the learned Judge of the Labour court declared that the employer has engaged in unfair labour practice, as contemplated under Items 1(a),(b),(d),(f) & (g) of Schedule IV of Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 (for short MRTU & PULP Act, 1971) and the employer was directed to cease and desist from the unfair labour practice. The dismissal order was set aside by the Labour court and reinstatement was directed of the employee with further directions to pay him wages from the date of his dismissal till the date of his retirement and also to pay him his retiral benefits. 4. The employer challenged the order passed by the Labour Court by filing Revision (ULP) No. 70/2015. 4. The employer challenged the order passed by the Labour Court by filing Revision (ULP) No. 70/2015. The learned Member of the Industrial Court though held that the complainant had proved that the inquiry conducted against him was illegal, improper and void and also further held that the findings of the Inquiry Officer were perverse, restrained itself from recording findings on the other issues, whether the complainant proves that the dismissal from service was by way of unfair labour practice, as contemplated under any one or other clauses of Item 1 of Schedule IV of the MRTU and PULP Act, 1971, and whether the complainant was entitled for relief of reinstatement with continuity of service and back wages. The Industrial Court held the aforesaid points to be not surviving in view of the further finding recorded by it that it was necessary to give opportunity to the employer to prove the misconduct of the employee in the court. 5. The learned Industrial Court in para 17 of its judgment has observed that, " it is the settled legal position that if the court holds that the inquiry is not fair and proper and the finding recorded by the Inquiry Officer are perverse then it becomes necessary to give opportunity to the employer to prove the misconduct of his employee in the court. The learned Industrial Court has also observed that the Labour Court proceeded in recording a finding on all the issues simultaneously since a pursis in that regard was filed by both the parties, i.e. employer and employee. Though it has not been expressly observed by the learned Industrial Court in its order from the tenor of the judgment, it is quite evident that the said court has disapproved the mode adopted by the Labour Court of deciding of the issues simultaneously. 6. It can be gathered from the judgment of the Industrial Court that it was of the view that the Labour Court must have decided the issue as about the fairness of the inquiry and the finding recorded by the Inquiry Officer were perverse or otherwise, as the preliminary issue and in the event of deciding the said issues against the employer, must have given necessary opportunity to the employer to prove the misconduct of his employee before the Labour Court. In the circumstances, the learned Industrial Court allowed the Revision application and remanded the matter to the Labour Court with a direction to give opportunity to the respondent to prove issue Nos. 1 and 2 and thereafter to pass appropriate order. 7. In fact, the order passed by the Industrial Court is also not very happily worded. However, both the learned counsel appearing for the parties were ad idem on issue that the matter was remanded to the Labour court by the Industrial Court so that the employer gets an opportunity to prove the misconduct of the employee before the Labour court and that was the reason that the learned counsel Shri Kawre was persuasive in placing heavy reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Shambhu Nath Goyal Vs. Bank of Baroda and Ors., (1984) AIR SC 289, 8. It is the contention of the learned counsel Shri Kawre, appearing for the employee that by giving an opportunity to the employer to prove the charges against the employee before the Labour court, the Industrial Court has exceeded its jurisdiction.. Relying upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex court in the case of Shambhu Nath Goyal Vs. Bank of Baroda and Ors. (cited supra), the learned counsel submitted that when in the written statement filed by the employer, no such request was made seeking opportunity to prove the charges against the employee before the Labour court and to adduce necessary evidence therefor, the Industrial Court could not have passed such order thereby giving such opportunity to the employer. The learned counsel further submitted that the labour court has already considered the entire material on record and has recorded a clear finding that the inquiry was not conducted fairly and the findings recorded by the Inquiry Officer were perverse. The learned counsel further submitted that in view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex court in the case of Shambhu Nath Goyal (cited supra), the order passed by the Industrial Court, is wholly unsustainable and deserves to be set aside. The learned counsel, therefore, prayed for setting aside the order passed by the Industrial Court and to confirm the order passed by the Labour court. 9. The learned counsel, therefore, prayed for setting aside the order passed by the Industrial Court and to confirm the order passed by the Labour court. 9. Shri D.P. Palodkar, learned counsel appearing for MSETCL, i.e. the employer, submitted that in view of the law laid down in the judgment delivered by the Constitution Bench of the Hon'ble Apex court in the case of Karnataka State Road Transport Corpn. Vs. Lakshmidevamma (Smt.) and Anr., (2001) 5 SCC 433 , the industrial court is equipped with the powers to give appropriate directions having regard to the facts involved in the matter including that of giving opportunity to the employer to bring necessary evidence against the employee concerned. The learned counsel further submitted that the judgment in the case of Shambhu Nath Goyal (cited supra) has been distinguished in the judgment delivered by the constitution Bench of the Hon'ble Apex court in the case of Karnataka State Road Transport Corpn. Vs. Lakshmidevamma (Smt.) and Anr. (cited supra). The learned counsel submitted that in the judgment separately written by Justice Shivraj Patil concurring with the majority view taken by Justice Hegde, such discretion is held to be available for the industrial court to give appropriate directions in appropriate matters. 10. The learned counsel thereafter referred to another judgment of the Hon'ble Apex court in the case of Divyansh Pandit Vs. Management, NCCBM, (2007) 15 SCC 787 , to urge that, subsequently the Hon'ble Apex court has also taken a view that it would be too technical to deprive the employer from proving the charge before the Labour court in absence of such pleading and written statement filed in the complaint ULP before the Labour court. 11. The learned counsel further submitted that in fact, on the basis of the material which was placed on record, the Industrial court must have held that the inquiry conducted by the employer against the employee, was fair and proper and principles of natural justice were scrupulously followed in conducing such inquiry. The learned counsel further pointed out that the documents on record demonstrate that at every stage of the inquiry, due opportunity was given to the employee to defend himself. The learned counsel further pointed out that the documents on record demonstrate that at every stage of the inquiry, due opportunity was given to the employee to defend himself. The learned counsel further submitted that having regard to the charges, which were levelled against the employee by the employer, the finding recorded by the Inquiry Officer, in no case, could have been held by the labour court to be perverse. The learned counsel, in the circumstances, prayed for setting aside the orders passed by the courts below and consequently to dismiss the Complaint (ULP) No.67/2013. 12. I have duly considered the submissions advanced by the learned counsel appearing for the parties. I have also perused the judgment passed by the Labour court and the judgment delivered by the Industrial Court in the Revision (ULP). As noted herein above, though the learned counsel for the petitioner was persuasive in making the submissions that the inquiry conducted against the employee shall be held to have been conducted fairly and also to further held that in the said inquiry, the misconduct of the employee has been sufficiently proved by the employer and though a further request was made to set aside the orders passed by the Labour court and the Industrial court and consequently to dismiss the Complaint (ULP) filed by the employee, I am not convinced with the submissions so made. 13. The Labour Court as well as the Industrial Court both have held the inquiry conducted against the employee to be improper and have not approved the finding recorded by the Inquiry Officer. In fact, the issue as about the fairness of the inquiry and whether the findings recorded by the Inquiry Officer were perverse or otherwise, must have been decided by the learned Labour Court as preliminary issues. As has come on record, the employer as well as the employee both had filed the pursis before the Labour Court requesting the said court to decide all the issues jointly and simultaneously. Question still remains, whether by filing such joint pursis, such a request could have been made by the parties and whether the same could have been accepted by the court. Question still remains, whether by filing such joint pursis, such a request could have been made by the parties and whether the same could have been accepted by the court. However, I do not wish to enter into the said controversy in view of the fact that the mistake which was committed by the Labour Court has been corrected by the Industrial court by holding that it is necessary to give an opportunity to the employer to prove the misconduct in the court. 14. It is, however, argued on behalf of the employee that the Industrial Court has grossly erred in permitting the employer to prove the misconduct of the employee before the Labour Court. Shri Kawre, the learned counsel appearing for the employee, therefore, prayed for setting aside the order passed by the Industrial court and to confirm the order passed by the Labour Court. The entire emphasis of Advocate Kawre was on the point that in absence of any specific request made and plea raised in the written statement, the Industrial Court could not have given opportunity to the employer to prove the charges against the employee before the Labour Court by adducing necessary evidence before the Labour court. 15. As against it, as I noted herein above, relying upon the Constitution Bench judgment in the case of Karnataka State Road Transport Corpn. Vs. Lakshmidevamma (Smt.) and Anr. (cited supra), it has been contended on behalf of the employer that for failure on his part to make an express prayer in the written statement seeking leave to prove the misconduct of his employee in the court, he cannot be precluded from adducing such evidence before the Labour court and the Industrial court certainly possesses such powers to permit him to adduce such evidence having regard to the facts involved in the instant matter. 16. 16. It is not in dispute that in the written statement filed by the employer in the Complaint (ULP) before the Labour Court though the fact of the inquiry conducted against the employee is mentioned and the particulars in regard to the said misconduct are also provided, no specific plea is raised or incorporated seeking permission of the court to adduce necessary evidence to prove the said charges/misconduct before the said court in the event the inquiry conducted against the employee is vitiated or the findings recorded by the Inquiry Officer are held to be perverse by the said court. 17. In the case of Shambhu Nath Goyal (cited supra), the Hon'ble Apex court has taken a firm view that unless a specific request is made or specific averment is raised in the written statement by the employer at the earliest stage, seeking permission to adduce necessary evidence to prove the charges before the court, in the event said court reaches to the conclusion that the inquiry was not conducted in fair manner or the conclusions recorded by the inquiry officer were perverse or that from the material on record the charges were not liable to be proved, no opportunity can be given to the employer to prove the said charges before the said court. 18. The Constitution Bench of the Hon'ble Apex court in the case of KSRTC Ltd. Vs. Lakshidevamma (cited supra) though has not taken any contrary view than taken by a three-judges Bench of the Hon'ble Apex court in the case of Shambhu Nath Goyal, Hon'ble Shri Justice Shivaraj Patil while writing a separate judgment (for Khare, J. and himself concurring with the majority view, has made certain observations in paras 44 and 45 of the said judgment, which are quite material in so for as the controversy involved in the present matter is concerned. I deem it appropriate to reproduce the said observations which read thus : - "44. The question as to at what stage the management should seek leave of the Labour Court/Tribunal to lead evidence/additional evidence justifying its action is considered in the draft judgment of Hegde, J. and not the power of the court/tribunal requiring or directing the parties to produce evidence if deemed fit in a given case having regard to the facts and circumstances of that case. As per Section 11(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short "the Act") a court/tribunal can follow the procedure which it thinks fit in the circumstances of the case subject to the provisions of the Act and the rules framed thereunder and in accordance with the principles of natural justice. Under Section 11(3), the Labour Court/Tribunal and other authorities mentioned therein have the same powers as are vested in a civil court under the Code of Civil Procedure when trying a suit in respect of certain matters which include enforcing the attendance of any person and examining him on oath and compelling the production of documents and material objects. 45. It is consistently held and accepted that strict rules of evidence are not applicable to the proceedings before the Labour Court/tribunal but essentially the rules of natural justice are to be observed in such proceedings. Labour Courts/Tribunals have the power to call for any evidence at any stage of the proceedings if the facts and circumstances of the case demand the same to meet the ends of justice in a given situation. We reiterate that in order to avoid unnecessary delay and multiplicity of proceedings, the management has to seek leave of the court/tribunal in the written statement itself to lead additional evidence to support its action in the alternative and without prejudice to its rights and contentions. But this should not be understood as placing fetters on the powers of the court/tribunal requiring or directing parties to lead additional evidence including production of documents at any stage of the proceedings before they are concluded if on facts and circumstances of the case it is deemed just and necessary in the interest of justice." 19. In the present matter, as I noted herein above, the employer has admittedly not raised any such plea in the written statement filed by him before the Labour court, seeking leave to prove misconduct of the employee before the said court by adducing necessary evidence there for. As submitted by the learned counsel appearing for the employer, the application was, however, submitted by the employer before the Industrial court, praying for framing the preliminary issues and remand the matter for that purpose to the Labour Court. As submitted by the learned counsel appearing for the employer, the application was, however, submitted by the employer before the Industrial court, praying for framing the preliminary issues and remand the matter for that purpose to the Labour Court. It was also contended by the learned counsel that a request was also made on behalf of the employer that he be permitted to prove the misconduct of the employee before the Labour court in the event the inquiry conducted against the said employee is vitiated by the said court. Though the Industrial Court has not specifically referred to the aforesaid contention allegedly made on behalf of the employer, from the observations made by the said court in para 17 of the impugned judgment it appears that possibly, such request was made on behalf of the employer and the same has been accepted by the said court. 20. I deem it appropriate to reproduce herein below the observations made by the said court in para 17 of the impugned judgment, which read thus, - "I have perused the judgment Exh.O-4. The Labour Court has narrated in brief pleadings of the parties. The Issues are properly framed at Exh.O-3. It is mentioned that Issue No.1 and 2 be decided as a preliminary issue. But, both the parties have given pursis that all Issues should be decided at once. Therefore, Labour Court has decided all Issues in the judgment. Issue No.1 and 2 are in respect of enquiry and the Labour Court has declared that enquiry is not fair and proper and findings are perverse. In view of said finding in my view it is necessary to give opportunity to the respondent to prove the misconduct in the court. There are various reported decisions wherein it is specifically mentioned that the issued in respect of enquiry and findings be treated as a preliminary Issue. Further, if the court hold that the equiry is not fair and proper, findings are perverse, then it is necessary to give opportunity to the respondent to prove mis-conduct in the court. However, it appears that due to filing pursis by both the parties the learned Labour Court had decided all issues and allowed the complaint. Further, if the court hold that the equiry is not fair and proper, findings are perverse, then it is necessary to give opportunity to the respondent to prove mis-conduct in the court. However, it appears that due to filing pursis by both the parties the learned Labour Court had decided all issues and allowed the complaint. In my view though the parties have given pursis to decide all issues at once, but the labour Court has to adjourn the judgment when he came to the conclusion that the enquiry is not fair and proper and finding are perverse. Therefore, the findings in respect of Issue No.3 & 4 given by Labour Court and accordingly passed following order for reinstatement is not legal and those findings are perverse. Considering said fact, according to me it is proper to remand the proceeding to the Labour Court to prove the misconduct." Considering the observations, as aforesaid, it is evident that the Industrial court, after having considered the material on record, has reached to a conclusion that it was necessary to give opportunity to the employer to adduce evidence to prove the charges against the employee before the labour court. 21. As has been held by the Hon'ble Apex court in the case of Karnataka State Road Transport Corpn. Vs. Lakshmidevamma (Smt.) and Anr. (cited supra), the Industrial Tribunals have the powers to exercise such discretion vested in them in appropriate matters and absence of specific plea by the management in the written statement itself filed before the Labour court to lead additional evidence to support its action, shall not be a fetter on the powers of the Tribunals in permitting the employer to adduce such evidence before the Labour Court in order to substantiate the misconduct alleged against the employee. Having regard to the law laid down as above by the Hon'ble Apex court, it does not appear to me that any error has been committed by the learned Industrial Court in permitting the employer to adduce evidence before the Labour Court in the event the inquiry held against the employee is vitiated by the said court on any count. 22. The Hon'ble Apex court in its subsequent judgment the case of Divyansh Pandit Vs. Management, NCCBM (cited supra) has reiterated the law laid down in the case of Karnataka State Road Transport Corpn. Vs. 22. The Hon'ble Apex court in its subsequent judgment the case of Divyansh Pandit Vs. Management, NCCBM (cited supra) has reiterated the law laid down in the case of Karnataka State Road Transport Corpn. Vs. Lakshmidevamma (Smt.) and Anr, by observing that in the event the inquiry conducted by the management is held 'non-est in the eyes of law', the Labour Court, undoubtedly has power to allow the management to lead additional evidence to establish charges against a workman concerned and this power subsists despite failure of employer to make a prayer for adducing additional evidence in its written statement. 23. For the reasons recorded above and more particularly in view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex court in the case of Karnataka State Road Transport Corpn. Vs. Lakshmidevamma (Smt.) and Anr. (cited supra) and Divyansh Pandit Vs. Management, NCCBM, (cited supra), it does not appear to me that any error has been committed by the Industrial Court in remanding the matter to the Labour court by permitting the employer to adduce necessary evidence before the said court to substantiate the charges levelled against its employee in the event the inquiry is held improper by the said court. Both the writ petitions, taking exception to the impugned order are thus devoid of any merit, and are, therefore, dismissed, however, without any order as to costs. Pending civil application, if any, stands disposed of.