# Chandra Shekhar Vishwakarma v. Presiding Officer Labour Court- 2 U.P. Kanpur And Ors

- **Citation:** (2019) 1 ILRA 1168
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2019-07-09
- **Case number:** Writ - B No. 50816 of 2009
- **Bench:** J.J. Munir
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/chandra-shekhar-vishwakarma-v-presiding-officer-labour-court-2-u-p-kanpur-and-44425
- **Pages:** 7

## Headnote

C.S.C., Sri R.A. Gaur, Sri Sunil Kumar
Mishra

A. Exparte proceeding-Inquiry proceedings
conducted without the schedule and venue
intimated to the delinquent is exparte
proceeding and is bad in eyes of law.

Labour Court committed error in not appreciating
evidence
as
to
receipt
of
notices.
Two
propositions are too well settled to brook
any doubt. One is about the time-tested
principle that an inquiry held without notice
to the delinquent workman is a nullity, and
all proceedings based on such an inquiry
would collapse. The second is that a finding
recorded
by
any
Court,
Tribunal
or
Authority, ignoring material evidence from
consideration,
or
drawing
perverse
conclusions from evidence, can never be
sustained.(Para15)

Cases cited: -

1.North West Karnataka Road Transport
Corporation vs. H.H.Pujar, AIR 2008 SC 3060,

## Text

1168 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
workman, the Tribunal may do anything
or pass any kind of orders within the four
corners of law permissible, but the
Tribunal
will
not
substitute
the
punishment awarded by the Tribunal,
though, it may, set aside the award or
uphold the same, in accordance with the
evidence that is forthcoming on record.

17. In the result, this petition
succeeds and is allowed in part.

18. The impugned judgment and
award passed by the Presiding Officer,
Industrial Tribunal-III, Kanpur dated
27.11.1998 is hereby quashed and the
matter is remanded to the Tribunal to
decide Adjudication Case No.37 of 1994
afresh, after permitting parties to lead
evidence and pass fresh orders within
three months next from the date of receipt
of a certified copy of this order, in
accordance with law, and whatever has
been said in this judgment.

19. There shall be no order as to
costs.
---------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 09.07.2019

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE J.J. MUNIR, J.

Writ - B No. 50816 of 2009

Chandra Shekhar Vishwakarma
 ...Petitioner
Versus
Presiding Officer Labour Court- 2 U.P.
Kanpur And Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri A.R. Dwivedi, Sri Ali Hasan, Sri
Brijendra Deo Mishra

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C., Sri R.A. Gaur, Sri Sunil Kumar
Mishra

A. Exparte proceeding-Inquiry proceedings
conducted without the schedule and venue
intimated to the delinquent is exparte
proceeding and is bad in eyes of law.

Labour Court committed error in not appreciating
evidence
as
to
receipt
of
notices.
Two
propositions are too well settled to brook
any doubt. One is about the time-tested
principle that an inquiry held without notice
to the delinquent workman is a nullity, and
all proceedings based on such an inquiry
would collapse. The second is that a finding
recorded
by
any
Court,
Tribunal
or
Authority, ignoring material evidence from
consideration,
or
drawing
perverse
conclusions from evidence, can never be
sustained.(Para15)

Cases cited: -

1.North West Karnataka Road Transport
Corporation vs. H.H.Pujar, AIR 2008 SC 3060,

2. Divisional Manager, Rajasthan State Road
Transport Corporation vs. Kamruddin , (2009)
SCC 552 (E-9)

(Delivered by Hon'ble J.J. Munir, J.)

1. Heard Sri Brijendra Deo Mishra,
learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri
Sunil Kumar Mishra, learned counsel
appearing for the respondent-Corporation.

2. This writ petition has been
preferred by a workman challenging an
award of the Labour Court 2nd, U.P.,
Kanpur in Adjudication Case No. 235 of
1999, dated 02.09.2008 and published on
13.01.2009. The said award is hereinafter
referred to as 'the impugned award'. By
the impugned award, an industrial dispute
raised at the instance of the petitioner,
Chandra Shekhar Vishwakarma, who is
1 All. Indrapal Kori And Others Vs. U.P.S.R.T.C.
1169
hereinafter referred to as the 'workman',
questioning his termination from service
by respondent no. 3 has been answered
against him.

3. The facts giving rise to this writ
petition are that the workman was a bus
conductor in the employ of the U.P. State
Road Transport Corporation, represented
before this Court by respondent nos. 2, 3
& 4. The aforesaid corporation and its
various officers are hereinafter referred to
as the 'Employers'. The petitioner was
posted as a conductor at the Orai depot of
the Employers in the District of Jalaun.
On
27.03.1997,
the
petitioner
was
operating Bus No. UP 933599 on the
Lucknow-Orai route. As the vehicle
approached Kalpighat, it was checked by
a Traffic Inspector of the Employers from
the Banda Depot, one Wakeel Ahmad.
According to the petitioner, the Traffic
Inspector found sixteen passengers on
board bus, which did a perfect tally with
entries in the way-bill. The petitioner
claims that lateron, the Traffic Inspector
lodged a complaint dated 28.03.1997 with
the Employers, to the effect that sixteen
passengers were found traveling on the
bus, when he checked the vehicle. He
found one of them to be without ticket. It
was claimed by the Traffic Inspector vide
his complaint dated 28.03.1997 that the
workman abused him in filthy language
and misbehaved.

4. On 29.03.1997, the Employers
initiated disciplinary proceedings against
the workman, who was directed to be
placed under suspension. A charge sheet
was issued to him on 29.03.1997. The
petitioner was actually placed under
suspension vide order dated 31.03.1997,
passed by the Assistant Regional Manager
of the Employers at Jhansi, on charges
summarized in the suspension order. A
charge sheet was issued to the workman
by
the
Regional
Manager
of
the
Employers, where eight charges in all
figured. The charge sheet aforesaid was
sent by the Regional Manager, last
mentioned, along with a copy of the
complaint
dated
28.03.1997.
The
Assistant
General
Manager
of
the
Employers, impleaded as respondent no. 4
to the petition was appointed the Inquiry
Officer, with a direction to complete the
inquiry and submit his report within a
month.

5. Upon receipt of the aforesaid
charge sheet the workman submitted his
reply on 28.06.1997 saying there that
along with the charge sheet, the workman
was not supplied a copy of the way-bill. It
was urged that in the absence of the waybill that was the most vital document, the
workman was not in a position to furnish
an effective reply. However, the workman
did submit his reply denying the charges
carried in the charge sheet with a prayer
that he be exonerated and reinstated in
service. According to the workman,
departmental inquiry did not proceed on
schedule
and
the
petitioner
was
provisionally reinstated in service by the
Regional Manager of his Employers. The
petitioner has come up with a categorical
case in paragraph 13 of the writ petition
that no notice of inquiry was served upon
the petitioner and it was held without
intimation of schedule and venue to him.
The workman has further averred in
paragraph 13 of the writ petition that the
Regional Manager of his Employers at
Jhansi, issued a show cause notice to him
dated 26.02.1999, alongwith a copy of the
inquiry report submitted by the Inquiry
Officer holding the charges proved and
the workman guilty. The show cause
1170 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
notice required the workman to furnish
his reply, why his service be not
terminated, and his salary for the period
of suspension forfeited.

6. Upon receipt of the aforesaid
show cause notice, the workman alleges
that he submitted a detailed reply on
10.03.1999, challenging various findings
recorded by the Inquiry Officer behind his
back. He requested that the proceedings
be dropped and his salary for the period of
suspension
released.
The
Regional
Manager of the Employers however
passed an order dated 07.04.1999, on the
basis of findings recorded in the inquiry
report, that the petitioner has dubbed exparte,
terminating
his
services
and
forfeiting salary for the period of his
suspension. It is at this stage that the
petitioner invoked the jurisdiction of the
authorities under the U.P. Industrial
Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred
to as the 'Act') and raised an industrial
dispute. The competent authority under
the Act made a reference vide order dated
18.08.1999, under Section 2-K of the Act,
which is in the following terms (translated
into English from Hindi vernacular):-

"Whether
termination
of
services of the workman Sri Chandra
Sekhar Vishwakarma son of Raghubar
Dayal, conductor vide order dated
07.04.1999 and forfeiture of his salary for
the period of suspension by the employers
is improper and illegal? If yes to what
relief is the workman entitled?"

7. On the basis of the aforesaid
reference, Adjudication Case No. 233 of
1999 was registered before the Labour
Court, IInd U.P., Kanpur. The workman
filed his written statement on 13.10.1999,
supported by his affidavit. The Employers
contested the workman's case by filing a
written statement on their behalf. The
Workman supported his case by oral and
documentary evidence, examining himself
as WW-1. The Employers too, adduced
oral and documentary evidence in support
of their case. One Taukheer Habib, an
Assistant, posted in the Office of the
Regional Manager of the Employers at
Jhansi, took stand in the witness box and
deposed in favor of the Employers. The
Labour Court, by means of the impugned
award, answered the reference, as already
said, against the Workman and in favour
of the Employers.

8. Learned counsel for the workman
has argued that the inquiry proceedings
were conducted without the schedule and
venue being intimated to him, in the sense
that he was never informed of the date
and the place of inquiry by the Inquiry
Officer. The entire proceedings were
concluded ex-parte behind his back, that
has resulted in gross violation of principle
of natural justice. He submits that once
the inquiry report is one submitted behind
the
petitioner's
back
and
without
intimation to him of the date, time and
place of inquiry, all subsequent action
taken, including the order terminating his
services is vitiated. He has urged that the
Labour Court has committed manifest
illegality in not appreciating the aforesaid
boldly written violation of principle of
natural justice, committed in the most
gross
manner.
He
submits
that
conclusions of the Labour Court on this
issue
are
perverse,
rendering
the
impugned award bad in law.

9. In order to substantiate his
contention he has invited the Court's
attention to the employer's evidence,
where in the examination-in-chief, the
1 All. Indrapal Kori And Others Vs. U.P.S.R.T.C.
1171
Employers witness Taukheer Habib has
stated that papers marked as paper Nos.
6/1, 6/2, 6/3, 6/4, 8/1, 8/2, 11/1, 13/1, 15/1
are notices sent to the workman to
participate in the departmental inquiry,
the original of which were before him. He
has further said in the examination-inchief that it is incorrect on the workman's
part to say that these summons/notices
regarding inquiry were delivered to him,
after the scheduled date had passed by. In
his cross examination regarding service of
these notices, there is a very specific stand
taken by this witness, to which learned
counsel for the workman has drawn the
Court's
attention.
This
reads
as
follows(extracted from the record of the
deposition carried in annexure-9 to the
writ petition, dated 15.02.2001):-

,Xth0 bZ&11 ls bZ&19 rd tks oknh
uksfVl@lEeu dks tkjh fd;s x;s gSa mlds
le; ls izkIr mls djok;s x;s og esjs }kjk
izkIr ugha djok;s x;sA Lor% dgk fd ;g
uksfVl fMiks Lrj ds oknh Jfed dks izkIr
djokus ds fy, Hksts x;s vkSj oknh Jfed dks
mDr lEeu izkIr djok;s x;s ;k ugha mudh
izkfIr jlhn okn i=koyh esa nkf[ky ugha gSaA
tkap dk;Zokgh esa fjiksVdrkZ odhy vgen
;krk;kr fujh{kd us ,Xth0 bZ&23 esa tks dqN
ntZ gS ogh c;ku tkap vf/kdkjh ds le{k
mUgksaus fn;k gS tks dkys ?ksjs esa gS blds
vfrfjDr vkSj dksbZ c;ku bUgksaus ugha fn;k gSA
tkap dk;Zokgh esa fjiksVZ drkZ us tkap vf/kdkjh
ds le{k i<+dj ugha lqukbZ FkhA ,Xth0 bZ0&11
ls bZ&19 rd tks oknh dh tkap dk;Zokgh esa
uksfVl Hksts x;s mu ij lEcfU/kr Jfed ds
izkfIr ds gLrk{kj ugha gSA
(Emphasis by court)

10. It is urged on the basis of said
categorical evidence of the Employers'
witness that notices of inquiry though sent
out to the workman and may be available
on records of the Employer, the same do
not bear his signatures, and, therefore,
service is not all proved. There is thus, no
proof at all to show or demonstrate the
fact that the workman was intimated of
the date, venue and time of inquiry before
hand to enable him to appear and defend
himself. In the impugned award, the
Labour Court in the first part, has noticed
the employer's case in this regard vide
paragraph 4, where it has been recorded
as under:-

foHkkxh; tkap vf/kdkjh ds }kjk tkap
lEikfnr djus ds mijkUr tkap fjiksVZ izn'kZ
bZ&7 izsf"kr dh x;hA foHkkxh; tkap fjiksVZ dk
voyksdu djus ls Li"V gS fd tkap vf/kdkjh us
;g vo/kkfjr djrs gq, dh ekeys dh tkap gsrq
fnukad
21@05@1997]
21@6@1997]
9@7@1997]
25@7@1997]
28@8@1997]
9@10@1997] 12@11@1997] 12@12@1997]
12@1@1998]
6@2@1998]
11@3@1998]
25@4@1998] 24@7@1998] 16@1@1998]
9@11@1998 ,oa 2@12@1998 fuf'pr dh
x;h fdUrq mDr fu/kkZfjr frfFk;ksa esa ls fdlh Hkh
frfFk esa vkjksih ifjpkyd mifLFkr ugha gqvk
tcfd fjiksVZdrkZ nks frfFk;ksa 9@7@1997 ,oa
25@4@1998 esa mifLFkr gqvkA fnukad
9@7@1997 dks fujh{kj.k drkZ odhy vgen
;krk;kr fujh{kd mifLFkr gq, vkSj viuk c;ku
ntZ djk;k ftlesa dgk fd muds }kjk fnukad
28@3@1997 dks Jh pUnz'ks[kj ifjpkyd mjbZ
fMiksa ds fo:) tks fjiksVZ dh x;h gS og mldh
iqf"V djrs gS vkSj ;gh mudk c;ku gSA ekeys
esa vkjksih deZpkjh dks cpko dk iw.kZ volj
fn;k x;k fdUrq og tkap dk;Zokgh esa vuqifLFkr
gksdj cpko ds volj ls Lo;a oafpr jgkA tkap
dk;Zokgh esa 16 frfFk;ksa esa ls fdlh Hkh frfFk esa
ifjpkyd
mifLFkr
ugha
gqvkA
(Emphasis by court)

11. This issue about service of
notice of inquiry has been examined by
the Labour Court in paragraph 13 of the
award, where the case of non service has
been repelled in terms of the following
findings:-
1172 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

blds foijhr foi{kh lsok;kstdks dh
vksj ls dgk x;k gS fd oknh Jfed i{k
tku&cw>dj dk;Zokgh ds nkSjku vusd volj
,oa uksfVl nsus ds ckotwn tkap esa tkucw>dj
mifLFkfr ugha gqvk] vr% ,slh fLFkfr esa foHkkxh;
tkap ds vUrZxr iw.kZ :is.k volj iznku fd;k
x;k Fkk vkSj tkap fjiksVZ uSlfxZd fl)kUrksa ds
fo:) ugha dgk tk ldrk bl laca/k esa oknh
Jfedi{k pUnz 'ks[kj MCyw&1 us vius
izfrijh{kj.k esa dgk fd mls tkap dk;Zokgh esa
pwafd le; ls dksbZ dkxt gh izkIr ugha gksrk
FkkA blfy, og tkap dk;Zokgh esa 'kkfey ugha
gks ikrk Fkk] ijarq eSa fyf[kr esa dksbZ izkFkZuk i=
ugha fn;k fd eq>s dkxt le; ls izkIr ugha
gksrk gSA eSf[kd :i ls f'kdk;r djrs FksA
izkfIr ijh{k.k ds vUrZxr blus foi{kh
lsok;kstdksa ds }kjk lwph ds dkxt la[;k 15
dks ns[kdj crk;k fd eSa ugha ldrk fd ;g
ogh i= gS tks eq>s izkIr gqvk Fkk vkSj ;gh
fLFkfr lwph ds dkxt la0 13.6/1. 6/2.6/3.
6/4.8. 9/2 ds gSaA bl lk{kh us vius
izfrijh{k.k ds vUrZxr ;g Hkh dgk gS fd lwph
ds dzekad &9 ij tks izkfIr jlkhn gS ml ij
mlds gLRkk{kj gSA bl izdkj ;g vfHkys[kh;
lk{z; izn'kZ b&11 yxk;r izn'kZ b&19 oknh
Jfed i{k pUnz'ks[kj dks Hksts x;s uksfVl dh
dk;kZy; izfr gS tks mls foHkkxh; tkap ds
vUrZxr mifLFkr gksus ds laca/k esa tkap vf/kdkjh
ds }kjk fuxZr fd;k x;k gSA bu vfHkys[kh;
lk{;ksa ,o oknh Jfed i{k pUnz 'ks[kj Mcyw&1
ds mijksDr lk{; ls ;g Li"V gks tkrk gS fd
foHkkxh; tkap ds nkSjku uksfVl ,oa i;kZIr
volj nsus ds ckotwn Hkh ;g tku&cw>dj tkap
dk;Zokgh
esa
lfEefyr
ugha
gqvkA
(Emphasis by court)
Xth0 bZ&11 ls bZ&19 rd tks oknh
uksfVl@lEeu dks tkjh fd;s x;s gSa mlds
le; ls izkIr mls djok;s x;s og esjs }kjk
izkIr ugha djok;s x;sA Lor% dgk fd ;g
uksfVl fMiks Lrj ds oknh Jfed dks izkIr
djokus ds fy, Hksts x;s vkSj oknh Jfed dks
mDr lEeu izkIr djok;s x;s ;k ugha mudh
izkfIr jlhn okn i=koyh esa nkf[ky ugha gSaA
tkap dk;Zokgh esa fjiksVdrkZ odhy vgen
;krk;kr fujh{kd us ,Xth0 bZ&23 esa tks dqN
ntZ gS ogh c;ku tkap vf/kdkjh ds le{k
mUgksaus fn;k gS tks dkys ?ksjs esa gS blds
vfrfjDr vkSj dksbZ c;ku bUgksaus ugha fn;k gSA
tkap dk;Zokgh esa fjiksVZ drkZ us tkap vf/kdkjh
ds le{k i<+dj ugha lqukbZ FkhA ,Xth0 bZ0&11
ls bZ&19 rd tks oknh dh tkap dk;Zokgh esa
uksfVl Hksts x;s mu ij lEcfU/kr Jfed ds
izkfIr ds gLrk{kj ugha gSA

12. It is, thus evident, that the
Labour Court has failed to take into
consideration the specific assertions of the
Employers' witness, Taukheer Habib, who
has categorically said in his cross
examination,
dated
15.02.2001,
that
exhibits E-11 to E-19 that are notices sent
to the workman to participate in the
inquiry, do not bear his signatures. The
Labour Court noticing the Employers case
in the impugned award that these notices
were served upon the workman about
dates fixed in the inquiry but he did not
appear has recorded the finding, above
extracted, which says that the workman
has admitted in his cross examination, the
fact that receipt of acknowledgment at
serial No. 9 of the list of documents, bears
his signatures. The Labour Court has held
that in this manner documents exhibited
as E-11 to E-19, that are office copies of
the notices sent to the workman to
participate in the departmental inquiry are
proved to be issued by the Inquiry
Officer. It is further held that from these
documents and the deposition of the
workman,
Chandra
Shekhar
Vishwakarma, WW-1, it is clear that
during course of inquiry despite notice
and adequate opportunity, the workman
did not deliberately appear.

13. This Court is constrained to
observed that the finding of the Labour
Court on the most serious issue in the
matter, that is service of notice about the
1 All. Indrapal Kori And Others Vs. U.P.S.R.T.C.
1173
date, time and venue of inquiry is
vitiated for non consideration of material
evidence
and
drawing
perverse
conclusions from the evidence on record.
This is so because the evidence of the
Employers witness that is clear and
categorical to the effect that exhibit E-11
to E-19, that are the notices sent to
workman to attend various dates fixed
during the inquiry, do not bear the
workman's signatures. It would have
been a different matter if in regard to
each of these documents or their office
copies, the Labour Court had recorded a
categorical finding that the same actually
bear the workman's signatures, which
have been admitted or found to be his
signatures. If that had been the case,
ignoring the evidence of the Employers'
witness, Taukheer Habib might not have
vitiated the Labour Court's finding, but
the Labour Court has not found in those
terms against the workman. All that the
Labour Court has said is that a receipt at
serial no. 9 of the list of documents has
been admitted by the workman, to bear
his signatures of acknowledgment. It is
no where said that this receipt relates to
notices of the scheduled inquiry, marked
as Exhibits E-11 to E-19. It is said in
very unclear terms that do not establish
any connection between the receipt at
serial no. 9 of the list, and the office
copies of the notices, marked as Exhibits
E-11 to E-19. It is then said in a more
mystifying finding that from these
documentary evidence and testimony of
the
workman,
Chandra
Sekhar
Vishwakama, it is clear that the during
the course of inquiry he got notice and
sufficient opportunity but did not appear.
How this inference has been drawn from
the admission of the workman, regarding
his signatures being there on a receipt at
serial no. 9 of the list of documents, is
difficult to fathom. On the other hand
what is clear is that a categorical
assertion of the Employers witness,
saying that there are no signatures of
acknowledgment of the workman on the
notices about the scheduled inquiry sent
to him has not at all been taken into
consideration by the Labour Court and
has been completely ignored. This
acknowledgment, by the Employers'
witness is the most material evidence,
which
could
not
be
left
out
of
consideration by the Labour Court. On
the other hand, the manner in which it
has drawn its vague and mystifying
conclusions
from
one
receipt,
the
acknowledgment of which has been
admitted by the workman, that all notices
of inquiry, marked as Exhibits E-11 to E19 have been served upon him is clearly
perverse.

14. Sri Suneel Mishra for the
Employers and Sri V.D. Mishra on behalf
of
the
workman
have
extensively
canvassed the other points regarding the
merits of the charges, which according to
the workman are not at all proved, while
according to Sri S.K. Mishra they are
proved to the hilt. Sri Mishra has placed
reliance on the decision of the Supreme
Court in North West Karnataka Road
Transport Corporation vs. H.H. Pujar,
AIR
2008
SC
3060,
Divisional
Manager,
Rajasthan
State
Road
Transport Corporation vs Kamruddin,
(2009) SCC 552, to submit that in the
case of a conductor who has been found
carrying ticketless passengers, no other
punishment except dismissal or removal
from service is warranted. It is true that it
may be the law, but this Court thinks that
in the present matter, that stage has not
arrived for reason that it is not yet
established that the petitioner indeed had
1174 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
notice of the various dates fixed during
the inquiry, that led to findings about one
passenger being carried by him without
ticket, out of a total of 16. The other
charges that emanate from allegations of
Wakeel Ahmad, Traffic Inspector, that he
was assaulted and abused, also for the
same reason, cannot be judged on merits
till it is proved that workman was indeed
served with notice of the date, time and
place of inquiry, as claimed by the
Employers.

15. This Court does not for the
moment hold that indeed the entire
inquiry was held ex-parte, but thinks that
on the state of evidence on record, the
Labour Court must look into the evidence
of Taukheer Habib, and carefully examine
the office copies of notices claimed to be
served upon the workman, relating to
various dates fixed in the inquiry before
returning a well informed finding on the
said issue. Two propositions are too well
settled to brook any doubt. One is about
the time tested principle that an inquiry
held without notice to the delinquent
workman is a nullity, and all proceedings
based on such an inquiry would collapse.
The second is that a finding recorded by
any
Court,
Tribunal
or
Authority,
ignoring
material
evidence
from
consideration,
or
drawing
perverse
conclusions from evidence, can never be
sustained.

16. In this view of the matter, this
Court at this stage does not propose to go
into the other points raised by the
petitioner, assailing the findings of the
Labour Court, but considers it appropriate
to remit the matter to the Labour Court to
determine afresh the issue in clear and
categorical terms, after consideration of
relevant evidence on record, whether the
workman was indeed served with notices
of inquiry issued by the Employers
regarding the date, time and venue. In this
regard, the evidence of the employers
witness, Taukheer Habib will also be
taken into consideration, besides whatever
relevant evidence is there on record. The
other findings recorded by the Labour
Court would have little meaning or legal
force, unless it is determined that the
inquiry was indeed held, after due notice
to the workman of the various dates fixed.
Thus the findings of the Labour Court on
other issues cannot be sustained, where
the fundamental issue whether the inquiry
at which these findings on the various
charges have been recorded, was held
after due and valid notice to the petitioner
is required to be determined afresh in
accordance with law.

17. In the result the writ petition is
allowed in part. The award passed by the
Labour Court is set aside, with a remit of
the matter to the Labour Court concerned,
which shall pass an award afresh in
accordance with law, bearing in mind the
directions in this judgment; all to be done
within a period of four months next from
the date of receipt of a certified copy of
this order. Costs easy.
----------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 20.08.2019

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE PRADEEP KUMAR SINGH
BAGHEL, J.
THE HON'BLE PANAKAJ BHATIA, J.

Writ-C No. 1216 of 2019

Sushil Chandra Srivastava And Anr.
 ...Petitioners
Versus
State of U.P. And Ors. ...Respondents