JUDGMENT : The appellant-workman filed this intra Court appeal against the order dated 30.03.2015 made in W.P.No.80058/2009 on the file of the learned Single Judge of this Court allowing the writ petition filed by the respondent-District Manager Karnataka Food and Civil Supplies Corporation, setting aside the order dated 18.09.2008 made in KID No.104/2004 passed by the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Gulbarga and remanded the matter to the Labour Court with a direction to frame issue as to whether the Labour Court has any jurisdiction to entertain this claim petition before it and whether KCSR Rules are applicable to the workman or not. 2. It is the case of the appellant that he was appointed as Group-D employee under the respondent in the year 1988. The appointment of the appellant and others were not liked by some officers in the respondents department who wanted their men to be appointed and accordingly, there was removal of all the said employees including the appellant in the year 1989, which has resulted into having recourse to legal remedy. Because of the judicial verdict, all of were compelled to be taken back on duty again in the year 1991. 3. It is the further case of the appellant that he was rendering his duty honestly and to the full satisfaction of the Management and he was paid with the less wages of Rs.940/- per month, whereas the others are getting more than Rs.5,000/- to Rs.6,000/- per month. During the year 1997 when the workman was working with the respondent No.1 at Bijapur, he was not feeling well, therefore, he applied for leave and went for taking treatment from 24.10.1997 due to prolonged illness and he did not joined to his duty till July 1999. During the said period, he approached the respondent on few occasions and stated that he is unable to joined the duty. After recovering from his illness, he went for reporting duty, but respondents did not permit the appellant to join duty as he has been falsely alleged that he remained unauthorized absent from 24.10.1997 to 21.07.1999 and he was issued with the articles of charge, but the proper copies were not supplied to him and he has properly replied for the articles of charge as well as show cause notice for the articles of charge. Thereafter, based on the enquiry report, the appellant was compulsory retired from service by passing the order dated 27.11.2003. Therefore, the appellant was constrained to file claim petition under Section 10(4-A) of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, and raised various contentions before the Labour Court in KID No.104/2004. 4. The present respondents filed objections before the Labour Court and disputed the allegations made and contended that the allegations made in para-5 of the claim petition are all false. The enquiry was conducted by them was in accordance with law. Every paper was given to him and inquiry was conducted according to KCSR(CCA) Rules and claimant was provided all the opportunities in the enquiry. He was never assured as has been stated by him. The respondent-Corporation is not an Industry as alleged but it is a Government undertaking Organization and has adopted the KCSR(CCA) Rules for administration. Hence, sought for dismissal of claim petition. 5. The Labour Court considering the contentions, issue No.2 was taken as preliminary issue and recorded the finding that the enquiry conducted against the present appellant was not fair and proper. Thereafter, the parties were allowed to adduce evidence before the Labour Court. The appellant was examined as WW.1 and has got marked Exs.W1 and W2. On behalf of respondent-Corporation, the District Manager was examined as MW.1 and has got marked Exs.M1 to M16. 6. The Labour Court considering both oral and documentary evidence by an order dated 18.09.2008 allowed the claim petition filed by the present appellant under Section 10(4-A) of the I.D.Act, dismissal order passed by the Management dated 27.11.2003/ 04.12.2003 came to be set aside and directed respondent Nos.1 and 2 to reinstate the claimant into service with continuity of service but without backwages within two months from the date of the award. 7. Being aggrieved by the award passed by the Labour Court, the respondents filed writ petition before this Court in W.P.No.80058/2009 before the learned Single Judge raising various contentions. The present appellant who is respondent before the learned Single Judge has not filed any statement of objections. 7. Being aggrieved by the award passed by the Labour Court, the respondents filed writ petition before this Court in W.P.No.80058/2009 before the learned Single Judge raising various contentions. The present appellant who is respondent before the learned Single Judge has not filed any statement of objections. After hearing both the parties, the learned Single Judge of this Court by the order dated 30.03.2015 allowed the writ petition and set aside the order passed by the Labour Court dated 18.09.2008 made in KID No.104/2004 and remanded the matter to the Labour Court to frame issue as to whether the Labour Court has any jurisdiction to entertain this claim petition before it and whether KCSR Rules are applicable to the workman or not. Against the said order passed by the learned Single Judge, the present appeal came to be filed in the year 2016 i.e. on 04.02.2016. 8. This Court has not granted any interim order in the present appeal staying the operation of the order of learned Single Judge remanding the matter for fresh consideration before the Labour Court. Though the present appellant was respondent before the learned Single Judge directed the Management-respondent compliance of Section 17-B of the I.D.Act and release the amount in favour of the present appellant-workman subject to the orders of the Labour Court. Accordingly, the appellant has drawn amount deposited by the Management. 9. Unfortunately, though the remand order was passed on 30.03.2015. The workman-appellant or the respondents never appeared before the Labour Court and unfortunately the Labour Court also has not issued any notice to the present appellant or the respondents, though this Court communicated the order in the year 2015 itself. More than three years elapsed till today the Labour Court has not proceeded with the directions issued by the learned Single Judge. It is clearly indicates the negligence on the part of the appellant, respondents as well as the Labour Court, thereby stalled the present proceedings for more than 3½ years. 10. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant at length and the respondents. 11. Sri P. Vilaskumar, learned counsel for the appellant-workman vehemently contended that the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge setting aside the award passed by the Labour Court remanding the matter is erroneous, contrary to the material on record. He would further contend that the respondents-Corporation is Government undertaking but it is Corporation. 11. Sri P. Vilaskumar, learned counsel for the appellant-workman vehemently contended that the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge setting aside the award passed by the Labour Court remanding the matter is erroneous, contrary to the material on record. He would further contend that the respondents-Corporation is Government undertaking but it is Corporation. The respondent-Corporation has to take action against its workers only in accordance with its Service Rules and the Corporation has no business to invoke the provisions of KCSR Rules. 12. He would further contend that in view of Rule 15(a) of the Karnataka Food & Civil Supplies Corporation Limited Service Rules, the service of employee who has been appointed to any post in the Corporation and who has satisfactorily completed his period of probation may be terminated by the appointing authority on giving such employee notice or pay in lieu thereof and after following the procedure laid down under the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Therefore, the learned Single Judge ought not to have remanded the matter and ought to have decided the case on merits. 13. He would further contend that in catena of judgments/orders by this Court in the case of B.R. Gangadhar vs. The Managing Director-Cum-Disciplinary Authority and Others made in W.P.No.8072/2005; K. Mallikarjuna vs. Karnataka Food and Civil Supplies Corporation Limited made in W.P.No.39636/2013; in respect of very Corporation this Court already held it is an Industry. Therefore, KCSR Rules are not applicable. The same has not been considered by the learned Single Judge, thereby erroneously remanded the matter, which was not warranted at all. He would further contend that in view of the dictum of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Raghubir Singh vs. General Manager, Haryana Roadways reported in 2014 (143) FLR 469 held that dismissal of an employee without conducting enquiry in accordance with the relevant Rules is wholly untenable and order of termination highly disproportionate to gravity of misconduct and shocks conscience of the Court and therefore the respondent shall be directed to reinstate the appellant with back wages from the date of raising the industrial dispute till date of reinstatement with all consequential benefits. 14. He further contended that when knowing fully well the respondents-Corporation Industry they should not have raised all frivolous objections before the Labour Court. 14. He further contended that when knowing fully well the respondents-Corporation Industry they should not have raised all frivolous objections before the Labour Court. Therefore, the Labour Court ignoring the frivolous objections rightly proceeded to pass the impugned order on merits and the learned Single Judge ought not have interfered with the order passed by the Labour Court. He further contended that when the Labour Court on a preliminary issue recorded a finding that enquiry held was not proper and fair, the learned Single Judge ought not have relied upon enquiry report while remanding the matter. Hence, he sought to allow the writ appeal. 15. Per contra, Sri Ravi B. Patil, learned counsel for respondents-Corporation sought to justify the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge in remanding the matter. He quickly pointed out that the order passed by the enquiry authority against the workman was by invoking the provisions of Rule 8(vi) of the KCS (CCA) Rules, 1957. Therefore, it was duty of the Labour Court to frame proper issue with reference to the pleadings of the parties and decide the same. The same has not been done by the Labour Court. Therefore, the learned Single Judge has rightly remanded the matter with a direction to frame issue of jurisdiction and applicability of KCS Rules to the appellant. The remand order passed by the learned Single Judge is just and proper. This Court cannot interfere under the intra Court appeal under Section 4 of the High Court Act, 1961. Hence, he sought to dismiss the appeal. 16. In view of the rival contentions urged by the learned counsel for the parties, the only point that arises for our consideration in this appeal is: “Whether the appellant has made out a case to interfere with the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge remanding the matter for fresh consideration by the Labour Court under the provisions of Section 4 of the High Court Act, 1961? 17. We have given anxious consideration to the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and perused the entire material on record carefully. 18. It is the specific case of the workman before the Labour Court that due to his ill-health he applied for leave and went for taking treatment on 24.10.1997 due to prolonged illness he did not attend the duty till July 1999. 18. It is the specific case of the workman before the Labour Court that due to his ill-health he applied for leave and went for taking treatment on 24.10.1997 due to prolonged illness he did not attend the duty till July 1999. When after recovering from his illness as he went to reporting duty, he was not permitted to join duty and falsely alleged that he remained authorized absent from 24.10.1997 to 21.07.1999 and thereafter the respondents initiated enquiry and proceeded to pass the order dated 27.11.2003/04.12.2003 compulsory retiring the present appellant from service by invoking the provisions of Rule 8(vi) of KCS (CCA) Rules and the appellant raised industrial dispute under Section 10(4-A) of the I.D.Act, 1947. The present respondents who filed the objections before the Labour Court denied the allegations made in the claim petition and taken a specific contentions that the enquiry conducted against the workman in accordance with the KCSR Rules after giving sufficient opportunity and the Corporation is not an Industry as alleged, but it is Government undertaking Organization and has adopted KCS(CCA) Rules for administration. The Labour Court though by preliminary enquiry on issue No.2 has held that the enquiry conducted against the appellant was not fair and proper and allowed the parties to adduce the evidence both oral and documentary evidence. 19. The Labour Court based on the aforesaid pleadings has framed the following issues: 1. Whether the respondents Corporation is an Industry as defined under I.D. Act? 2. Whether the DE conducted is fair and proper? 3. Whether the claimant is guilty of misconduct of unauthorized absence? 4. Whether the punishment of compulsory retirement is disproportionate? and recorded a finding that the respondent-Corporation is an Industry as defined under the I.D.Act and enquiry conducted was not fair and proper. The order passed by the disciplinary authority was disproportionate to the gravity of the charge and accordingly set aside the order passed by the disciplinary authority and directed for reinstatement of appellant into service with continuity of service without back wages within two months from the date of the award coming into force of its publication. Admittedly the workman has not filed any writ petition denial of the back wages by the Labour Court. 20. The learned Single Judge considering the petition at para 4 and 5 has recorded as under: “4. Admittedly the workman has not filed any writ petition denial of the back wages by the Labour Court. 20. The learned Single Judge considering the petition at para 4 and 5 has recorded as under: “4. On hearing learned counsels, I’ am of the considered view that appropriate relief requires to be granted. The primary objection of the Management is with regard to the jurisdiction of the Labour Court to entertain such a claim petition. His case is that having terminated the workman under the provisions of the KCSR Rules, an appeal is required to be filed in terms of the said rules. Therefore, the Labour Court would not have any jurisdiction to entertain the claim petition under the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act. 5. The Labour Court however framed an issue and held that the petitioners being an industry, the workman is entitled for relief. I’ am of the considered view that the same is inappropriate. The Labour Court would have to first determine as to whether the KCSR Rules are applicable or not. When a specific plea is taken with regard to the applicability of the KCSR Rules the same requires to be considered by the Labour Court. It has failed to do so. On the contrary it has proceeded on by holding that the petitioners is an industry. It is only a secondary issue that may arise for consideration. The primary issue is whether the KCSR Rules are applicable or not. Hence, it is just and necessary for the Labour Court to first determine the issue as to whether the Industrial Disputes Act is applicable to the petitioners in the facts and circumstances of the case. and ultimately set aside the order passed by the Labour Court and remanded the matter to the Labour Court with direction to frame an issue as to whether the Labour Court has any jurisdiction to entertain the claim petition before it and whether KCS(CCA) Rules are applicable to the workman or not. 21. Though an attempt is made by the learned counsel for the appellant Sri P. Vilaskumar, once the Labour Court held the Corporation is an Industry the question of considering the issue with regard to applicability of KCSR Rules would not arise. 21. Though an attempt is made by the learned counsel for the appellant Sri P. Vilaskumar, once the Labour Court held the Corporation is an Industry the question of considering the issue with regard to applicability of KCSR Rules would not arise. We are afraid of such contentions, it is duty of the original authority i.e. the Labour Court has to frame proper issue with regard to the pleadings and the defence taken before it. The appellant-workman has taken a specific contention that the Corporation is an Industry applying the provisions of Rule 8(vi) of the KCS(CCA) Rules was erroneous and it was specific defence of the Corporation that they have adopted KCSR Rules and given sufficient opportunity for the workman and proceeded in accordance with law. Para-5 of the objections filed before the Labour Court which reads as under: “5. The allegations made in para 5 of the claim petition are all false. The Enquiry was conducted as per law. Every paper was given him and inquiry was conducted according to KCSR (CCA) Rules and claimant was given all the opportunities while inquiring his case. Nothing was done behind his back. He was never assured as has been stated by him. grounds: 2. The respondent Corporation is not an Industry as alleged but it is a Government undertaking Organisation and has adopted the KCSR (CCA) Rules for administration.” 22. When such specific defence taken, it is duty of the Labour Court to frame proper issue and proceed in accordance with law that too when the respondent authorities-Corporation proceeded to retire the appellant on compulsory retirement invoking the provisions of Rule 8(vi) of KCS (CCA) Rules 1957. It was incumbent on the part of the Labour Court to frame proper issue. 23. Though Sri P. Vilaskumar, learned counsel for the appellant tried to persuade us that when catena of judgments of this Court already decided that the very Corporation present respondents is an Industry question of deciding afresh would not arise. We are not persuaded by the arguments advanced by the appellant’s counsel and judgment relied upon by the counsel for the appellant that Corporation is an industry which the respondent-Corporation raised a specific defence and proceeded to punish the appellant invoking the provisions of Rule 8(vi) of the KCS(CCA) Rules, 1957, the labour Court ought to have recorded a finding that whether the KCSR Rules are applicable or not. Though the argument is attractive, the same was not put forth before the Labour Court or before the learned Single Judge. We are not persuaded to accept such contention for the first time that too in the writ appeal when the scope of appeal is very limited exercising powers under Section 4 of the High Court Act in the intra Court appeal. The contentions raised by the learned counsel for the appellant with regard to the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Raghubir Singh supra, where it is well settled position that before dismissal proper enquiry should be held opportunity should be given and we have no quarrel with the said dictum of the Hon’ble Supreme Court. The said judgment may not assist the appellant in the present intra Court appeal filed against the remand order passed by the learned Single Judge. 24. For the reasons stated above, we answer the point framed in the negative holding that the appellant has not made out any case to interfere with the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge in the present intra Court appeal remanding the matter for fresh consideration on the question of jurisdiction and applicability of KCS (CCA) Rules. It is for the Labour Court to answer the said issue and pass appropriate orders strictly in accordance with law. 25. For the reasons stated above, the appeal filed by the appellant-workman is devoid of merit. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. 26. However, it is made clear though the remand order was passed by the learned Single Judge on 30.03.2015, we are now in 2019, because of the negligence on the part of the appellant, respondents and the Labour Court unnecessary three years elapsed, nothing is forthcoming. Therefore, it is necessary to direct the Labour Court to proceed with the case in I.D.No.104/2004 and pass appropriate orders within a reasonable period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order without seeking further adjournment because it is lapse on the part of the Labour Court not proceeding with the case in accordance with remand order. 27. 27. Both the parties are directed to appear before Labour Court on 18.02.2019 and the Labour Court is directed to proceed with the case and decide strictly in accordance with law taking into consideration all the contentions to be urged by the counsel for the appellant-workman and as well as the counsel for the respondent and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law without their being any influence of the order passed by the learned Single Judge or by this Court while disposing of the appeal. 28. All the contentions urged in the present appeal are left open to both the parties to be urged before the Labour Court. Ordered accordingly.