https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=190283 The Labour Court's power under Section 61 of the Madhya Pradesh Industrial Relations Act, 1950 extended to examining the legality and propriety of an employer's order under the standing orders, while the Industrial Court's revisional jurisdiction under Section 66 permitted interference where the Labour Court failed to exercise vested jurisdiction or acted with material irregularity. On the facts, the Industrial Court found the enquiry officer had ignored material evidence and acted unfairly, and it limited itself to setting aside the Labour Court's order and remitting the matter for fresh adjudication without reappreciating evidence. That remand was a valid exercise of jurisdiction, and the High Court was not justified in quashing it under Articles 226 and 227. en-us Fri, 04 May 1984 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 10 Feb 2017 18:17:55 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=190283 The Labour Court's power under Section 61 of the Madhya Pradesh Industrial Relations Act, 1950 extended to examining the legality and propriety of an employer's order under the standing orders, while the Industrial Court's revisional jurisdiction under Section 66 permitted interference where the Labour Court failed to exercise vested jurisdiction or acted with material irregularity. On the facts, the Industrial Court found the enquiry officer had ignored material evidence and acted unfairly, and it limited itself to setting aside the Labour Court's order and remitting the matter for fresh adjudication without reappreciating evidence. That remand was a valid exercise of jurisdiction, and the High Court was not justified in quashing it under Articles 226 and 227. Case-Laws Indian Laws Fri, 04 May 1984 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=190283