STATE OF UP AND ANOTHERversusRAM KISHORE AND ANOTHER

              HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

                            WRIT - C No. - 13237 of 2026

State Of Up And Another
                                                                        .....Petitioner(s)
                                           Versus
Ram Kishore And Another
                                                                      .....Respondent(s)

Counsel for Petitioner(s)              :     Abhishek Srivastava, Amit Kumar Singh
Counsel for Respondent(s)              :     Anil Kumar Srivastava

Court No. - 36
                 HON'BLE SAURABH SHYAM SHAMSHERY, J.

1. Heard Sri Amit Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Anil Kumar
Srivastava, learned counsel for respondent no.1.

2. Petitioner before this Court is Department of Minor Irrigation, State of U.P.
Lucknow has approached this Court being aggrieved by the award passed by the
Labour Court, Kanpur dated 27.8.2025, that even if Labour Court comes to a
conclusion that order of termination was not passed on basis of any domestic inquiry,
Labour Court cannot directly pass order of reinstatement and backwages etc without
giving any opportunity to the employer to prove the charge against the workman by
leading evidence before the Labour Court.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has referred a judgment passed by Supreme
Court in M.L.Singla Vs. Punjab National Bank & Anr, AIR 2018 SC4668 as well
of this Court in M/S Shahi Export House (Now known as Shahi Export Pvt. Ltd.
Vs. Presiding Officer, Labour Court & Anr, 2026:AHC:142886, that if such an
error is committed, award can be declared illegal, since it is absolutely clear from the
impugned order that no opportunity was granted to the employer i.e. petitioner to
prove the charge against the workman i.e. contesting respondent no.1 by leading
evidence therefore, a finding returned in the impugned order that contesting
respondent has worked for 240 days in a calendar year was without giving a specific
finding in this regard is liable to be set-aside.

4. Learned counsel for the contesting respondent no.1 has submitted that it is not a
case where not only domestic inquiry was conducted properly, but it is a case of no
evidence and since it was based in regard to a document submitted by contesting
respondent about 15 years ago, and since there was no proper domestic inquiry,
therefore, only consequence would be to reinstate the contesting respondent no.1 with
full wages, however, he has not disputed the position of law as referred above.

5. Court takes note of M.L.Singla (supra) and its relevant paragraph no.25 is
reproduced hereinafter:
                                                                                                   WRIC No. 13237 of 2026
                                                                         2

                                          "25. If the Labour Court had come to a conclusion that the domestic
                                          enquiry is illegal because it was conducted in violation of the principles
                                          of natural justice thereby causing prejudice to the rights of the employee,
                                          respondent No.1-Bank was under legal obligation to prove the
                                          misconduct (charges) alleged against the appellant (employee) before the
                                          Labour Court provided he had sought such opportunity to prove the
                                          charges on merits."

                                    6. In the aforesaid circumstances, outcome of above discussion is that Labour Court
                                    has committed an illegality since no opportunity was granted to the petitioner to prove
                                    charges against the Workman. Accordingly, impugned award dated 27.8.2025 is set-
                                    aside to the extent of order of reinstatement with back wages.

                                    7. In view of above discussions, it is observed that so far as a finding that domestic
                                    inquiry was not fair is not disturbed. Accordingly, matter is remanded to Labour Court
                                    and it will proceed to decide the industrial dispute by calling the petitioner to lead
                                    evidence to prove charges levelled against contesting respondent no.1.

                                    8. Aforesaid exercise shall be concluded within a period of six months.

                                    9. Writ Petition is accordingly disposed of.


                                                                                        (Saurabh Shyam Shamshery,J.)
                                    September 24, 2026
                                    SB




Digitally signed by :-
SANDEEP BHATTACHARYA
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad