- (1.)HEARD learned Advocate for the respective parties.
(2.)RULE . By consent, Rule is made returnable forthwith and the petition is taken up for final hearing.
The petitioner -employee was appointed as a Store Keeper with the respondent -employer in 1989. On 19.12.1992, 12.5.1993 and 18.1.1994, the respondent issued charge sheets -cum -show cause notices to the petitioner, alleging negligence, improper maintenance and mis -appropriation against him. After conclusion of the domestic enquiry, he was issued with a second show cause notice dated 13.3.1995. The petitioner claims to have received the said notice on 25.3.1995. It is an admitted position that the dismissal order was dated 31.3.1995.

(3.)THE petitioner being aggrieved by the dismissal order, filed Complaint (ULP) No.20 of 1995 before the Labour Court at Ahmednagar. It was alleged that the respondent did not wait for seven days' period, while dismissing the petitioner, which was provided to him to submit his reply to the second show cause notice. So also the petitioner had made an application dated 25.3.1995 for seeking an extension of time by fifteen days to submit his reply. It is contended that the principles of natural justice were not adhered to by the respondent while issuing the impugned dismissal order. It is an admitted position that the findings of the Enquiry Officer have not been challenged by the petitioner, meaning thereby that the petitioner has not sought a declaration from the Labour Court that the findings of the Enquiry Officer be held to be perverse and unsustainable. There is no such pleading or prayer in his complaint. The Labour Court by it's order dated 8.10.2001 set aside the enquiry for being vitiated.