JUDGMENT : Jahangir Jamshed 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 2.9.2008 and published on 13.1.2009. 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 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 27.3.1997, 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 later on, the Traffic Inspector lodged a complaint dated 28.3.1997 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 28.3.1997 that the workman abused him in filthy language and misbehaved. 4. On 29.3.1997, the Employers initiated disciplinary proceedings against the workman, who was directed to be placed under suspension. A charge-sheet was issued to him on 29.3.1997. The petitioner was actually placed under suspension vide order dated 31.3.1997, 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. A charge-sheet was issued to him on 29.3.1997. The petitioner was actually placed under suspension vide order dated 31.3.1997, 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 28.3.1997. 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 28.6.1997 saying there that along with the charge-sheet, the workman was not supplied a copy of the waybill. 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 26.2.1999, along with a copy of the inquiry report submitted by the Inquiry Officer holding the charges proved and the workman guilty. The show-cause 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 10.3.1999, 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. 6. Upon receipt of the aforesaid show-cause notice, the workman alleges that he submitted a detailed reply on 10.3.1999, 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 7.4.1999, on the basis of findings recorded in the inquiry report, that the petitioner has dubbed ex parte, 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 18.8.1999, 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 7.4.1999 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. 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 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-in-chief 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 15.2.2001): ^^,XthŒ bZ&11 ls bZ&19 rd tks oknh uksfVl@lEeu dks tkjh fd;s x;s gSa mlds le; ls ÁkIr mls djok;s x;s og esjs }kjk ÁkIr ugha djok;s x;sA Lor% dgk fd ;g uksfVl fMiks Lrj ds oknh Jfed dks ÁkIr djokus ds fy, Hksts x;s vkSj oknh Jfed dks mDr lEeu ÁkIr djok;s x;s ;k ugha mudh ÁkfIr jlhn okn i=koyh esa nkf[ky ugha gSaA tkap dk;Zokgh esa fjiksVZdrkZ odhy vgen ;krk;kr fujh{kd us ,XthŒ bZ&23 esa tks dqN ntZ gS ogha 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 fjiksVZdrkZ us tkap vf/kdkjh ds le{k i<+dj ugha lqukbZ FkhA ,XthŒ bZŒ&11 ls bZ&19 rd tks oknh dh tkap dk;Zokgh esa uksfVl Hksts x;s mu ij lEcfU/kr Jfed ds ÁkfIr ds gLrk{kj ugha gSA** 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 Án'kZ bZ&7 Ásf"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 21-5-1997] 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{k.kdrkZ 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 pUæ'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** 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: ^^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 gqvkA vr% ,slh fLFkfr esa foHkkxh; tkap ds vUrZxr iw.kZ:is.k volj Ánku fd;k x;k Fkk vkSj tkap fjiksVZ uSlfxZd fl)kUrksa ds fo:) ugha dgk tk ldrkA bl laca/k esa oknh Jfedi{k pUæ'ks[kj MCY;w&1 us vius Áfrijh{k.k esa dgk fd mls tkap dk;Zokgh esa pwafd le; ls dksbZ dkxt gh ÁkIr ugha gksrk FkkA blfy, og tkap dk;Zokgh esa 'kkfey ugha gks ikrk Fkk] ijarq eSa fyf[kr esa dksbZ ÁkFkZuk i= ugha fn;k fd eq>s dkxt le; ls ÁkIr ugha gksrk gSA ekSf[kd :i ls f'kdk;r djrs FksA ÁkfIr 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 ogha i= gS tks eq>s ÁkIr gqvk Fkk vkSj ;gh fLFkfr lwph ds dkxt la[;k 13-6@1] 6@2-6@3] 6@4-8] 9@2 ds gSaA bl lk{kh us vius Áfrijh{k.k ds vUrZxr ;g Hkh dgk gS fd lwph ds Øekad&9 ij tks ÁkfIr jlhn gS ml ij mlds gLRkk{kj gSA bl Ádkj ;g vfHkys[kh; lk{; Án'kZ bZ&11 yxk;r Án'kZ bZ&19 oknh Jfed i{k pUæ'ks[kj dks Hksts x;s uksfVl dh dk;kZy; Áfr 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 ,oa oknh Jfed i{k pUæ'ks[kj MCY;w&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** 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 15.2.2001, that exhibits E-11 to E-19 that are notices sent to the workman to participate in the inquiry, do not bear his signatures. 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 15.2.2001, 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 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. 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 nowhere 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 E-19 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. 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 v. H.H. Pujar, AIR 2008 SC 3060 , Divisional Manager, Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation v. Kamruddin, (2009) SCC 552, to submit that in the case of a conductor who has been found carrying ticket less 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 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. 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.