JUDGMENT : Avinash G. Gharote, J. 1. The present petition challenges the judgment in ULPA Case No. 43/2011 dated 11-9-2012 on pre-point, whereby, the learned Labour Court on the pre-point held that the inquiry against the complainant was not fair and proper in the light of the findings as recorded by it in paras 7 and 8 of the order. The petition also challenges the judgment dated 14-12-2012 passed by the learned Labour Court, as well as the consequent judgment in revision passed by the Industrial Court dated 3-4-2018. 2. The facts of the present case are that the respondent who was engaged as a Bus Driver by the petitioner, is claimed to have met with an accident on 24-10-2010, in which, it is alleged that a lady aged about 80 years, died on the spot due to the dash given by the Bus, as a result of which a departmental inquiry was initiated and the respondent having been found guilty, a show cause notice dated 24-10-2011, was served upon him on 4-11-2011 calling upon him, as to why his services should not be terminated, being aggrieved by which inquiry and show cause notice, the proceedings before the learned Labour Court were initiated. The learned Labour Court while deciding the preliminary issue as to whether the enquiry conducted against the complainant was fair and proper, vide its order dated 11-9-2012, recorded a finding that the enquiry was not fair and proper and was vitiated for the reasons as stated therein. This being the position, it was necessary for the petitioner, to seek permission to lead evidence before the learned Labour Court to establish the guilt of the respondent, however, no such application came to be filed. The learned Labour Court thereafter, vide judgment dated 14-12-2012, after considering the position as mentioned in the order on pre-point as well as the fact that the petitioner failed to examine any independent witness and thus, had failed to prove the misconduct of the employee before the Court, allowed the complaint and held that the respondent had engaged in unfair labour practice as per Item 1 Schedule IV of the Maharashtra Act No. 1 of 1972. It also set aside the show cause notice of the proposed punishment of dismissal dated 24-10-2011. It also set aside the show cause notice of the proposed punishment of dismissal dated 24-10-2011. The order on pre-point dated 11-9-2012 as well as the judgment dated 14-12-2012 were challenged by the petitioner by way of revision before the Industrial Court which vide judgment dated 3-4-2018 dismissed the revision. Being aggrieved by which, the present petition has been filed. 3. Shri Wankhede, learned counsel for the petitioner strenuously contended that both the Court's below have not applied their mind to the position on record, apart from which, they could not have entertained the plea regarding the enquiry being vitiated on account of the same person acting as Enquiry Officer as well as Presiding Officer as observed by the learned Labour Court, for the reasons that the Rules as framed in this regard and specifically Rule 18 of the Discipline and Appeal Procedure as framed by the MSRTC, permitted the same. He further contended that the misconduct on part of the respondent was on the face of the record and therefore, it was not necessary for the petitioner to examine any witness in that regard. He therefore, prayed for setting aside the order passed by the Labour Court as well as the Industrial Court. 4. Having perused the record and considering the arguments as advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner I, find that the order on pre-point passed by the learned Labour Court dated 11-9-2012, holding that the enquiry was vitiated on account of the fact that the entire process of inquiry including issuing show cause notice, issuing the charge-sheet, the conduct of the departmental enquiry, the report or conclusion of the departmental inquiry and lastly show cause notice of punishment are done by one and the same person, whereby, the competent authority had acted in multiple roles while conducting inquiry against the complainant is clearly sustainable in law, as there is no warrant for such a procedure. The reliance placed by learned counsel Mr. The reliance placed by learned counsel Mr. Wankhede on Rule 18 of the Discipline and Appeal Procedure of MSRTC, does not help him in any manner, as it does not permit, what has been done by the inquiry officer in the present matter, as found by the learned Labour Court in paras 7 and 8 of its order on pre-point dated 11-9-2012, which read as under:- "No doubt, the procedure followed by the enquiry officer on face appears to be proper but, the most fatal thing that has came to my notice is that all the process of enquiry including issuing show cause notice, issuing the charge-sheet, the conduction of the departmental enquiry, the report or conclusion of the departmental enquiry, and lastly the show cause notice of punishment are done by one and the same person. It is therefore, clear that the competent authority has acted into multiple roles while conducting the enquiry against the complainant." "It is therefore, though the proper procedure was followed during the course of departmental enquiry, but the fact remains that all the roles are discharged by one and the same person. This fact itself goes to the root of the enquiry and turn it into unfair, illegal unwarranted." 5. It is material to note that the above position is not being denied by the petitioner, rather on the other hand, the same is being sought to be justified on the basis of Rule 18 referred to above, which itself does not contemplate such a procedure being permissible. Thus, no fault can be found with the order on pre-point as passed by the learned Labour Court. 6. So also, no fault can be found with the judgment of the learned Labour Court dated 14-12-2012 considering the fact that even in the case where the inquiry is held to be vitiated by the Court, the Management has a right to prove the misconduct of the employee before the Court. However, in the instant matter, no such attempt was made by the Management, which was necessary in light of the settled position that where an enquiry is declared to be vitiated by the learned Labour Court, the Management has to prove the misconduct before the Court at the earliest stage or first available opportunity. The record in the instant matter demonstrates, that the petitioner did not seek any opportunity to prove the misconduct before the Court. The record in the instant matter demonstrates, that the petitioner did not seek any opportunity to prove the misconduct before the Court. 7. The learned Industrial Court has, in the challenge to both the order on pre-point dated 11-9-2012 and the judgment dated 14-12-2012 has correctly appreciated the scope and ambit of the nature of interference which is permissible to the Industrial Court in the revisional jurisdiction and rightly refused to interfere, having found that the procedure as notified in the Discipline and Appeal Rules, did not permit the violation of the principles of natural justice, nor did they permit adopting the course which was found to be adopted by the enquiry officer conducting the departmental enquiry. It further rightly found that the examination of an independent witness in the present matter was necessary as the sole witness examined, did not have any knowledge as to factuality of incident a result of which, his testimony could not be relied upon. 8. The judgment in North West Karnataka Road Transport Corporation vs. H.H. Pujar, (2008) 12 SCC 698 , relied upon by Shri Wankhede, learned counsel for the petitioner is of no assistance to his case for the reason that said judgment is based upon the admission of the respondent of not issuing the tickets to 20 passengers, in the light of which, it was held that the non-examination of passengers is of no consequences. The further reliance on case of State of T.N. vs. Thiru K.V. Perumal and others, (1996) 5 SCC 474 regarding the scope of judicial review on the count that the Administrative Tribunal viz-a-viz. the departmental inquiry, is not an appellate authority and therefore, the scope of judicial review is restricted, is also of no assistance to him, as in the instant matter, admittedly, for the reasons recorded by the learned Labour Court and found to be correct by the Industrial Court, the enquiry itself stood vitiated, due to which the interference by the learned Labour Court was clearly warranted. Hence, I do not see any reason to interfere in the orders as passed. The petition is therefore dismissed with no order as to costs.