4 The Labour Court thereafter framed preliminary issues relating to fairness in the enquiry and perversity in the findings of the Enquiry Officer. It is inconceivable as to how the Labour Court could have framed preliminary issues relating to fairness of enquiry and perversity in the finding of Enquiry Officer in a Complaint seeking mere restraint order from dismissal of the Petitioner-employee. The disciplinary proceedings were still incomplete. Disciplinary proceedings get completed only when final punishment is imposed or when the employee is exonerated. In the present case, the disciplinary proceedings were still pending when the Labour Court entertained Complaint (ULP) No.38 of 2011 and proceeded to determine validity of such enquiry and of findings of Enquiry Officer. By Part-I Award dated 1 January 2018, the Labour Court decided both the preliminary issues against Petitioneremployee holding that the enquiry was fair and proper and that the findings of the Enquiry Officer are not perverse. Petitioner-employee filed Revision Application (ULP) No.59 of 2018 before Industrial Court, Kolhapur, challenging the Part I Award and the Revision Application came to be dismissed by the Industrial Court by order dated 8 February 2023. Petitioneremployee challenged the said order of Industrial Court dated 8 February 2023 before this Court by filing Writ Petition No.4572 of 2023, which came to be dismissed by clarifying that the Labour Court, while passing Part-II Award, shall not be influenced by observations in respect of the alleged misappropriation. The said clarification was issued on account of apprehension expressed by the Petitioner-employee that though misappropriation is not a part of charge, finding recorded by the Labour and Industrial Courts about alleged misappropriation would be used by the Labour Court while passing the Part II Award.
