JUDGMENT : Parth Prateem Sahu, J 1. By this appeal the appellant, who is widow of deceased employee, has challenged the impugned order dated 22.8.2017 passed by the learned Single Judge whereby the order dated 26.8.2011 passed by the Industrial Court, Bench at Bilaspur, in Appeal No.9/CGIR Act/A-II/2011 and the order of reinstatement dated 14.03.2011 passed by the Labour Court in Case No.2/CGIR Act/2010 have been set aside and the matter has been remanded back to the Labour Court to decide the case afresh on merits. 2. Brief facts of the case are that deceased Devi Deen Tiwari was engaged on muster-roll by respondent No.1 in the year 1997. Looking to his past engagement as muster-roll employee, services of said Devi Deen were regularized as 'Plant Attendant Grade-III'. After regularization, said Devi Deen submitted his Class 8th mark sheet wherein his date of birth was mentioned and accordingly the same was recorded in the service record. Said Devi Deen continued in service and had performed his duties till 14.1.2010 when he was terminated from services on the basis of one complaint received by the respondent establishment on 10.8.2009. The complaint was to the effect that said Devi Deen got mentioned his wrong date of birth in the service record on the strength of fake & forged documents. On receipt of such complaint, said Devi Deen was served with the notice dated 11.12.2009 titled as 'charge sheet' ¼vkjksi i=½ (Annexure P-6 to the writ petition). Subsequently, on the basis of some enquiry report the order of termination has been passed by way of punishment. 3. Feeling aggrieved by the order of termination, said Devi Deen filed an application under Section 31 (3) of the CG Industrial Relations Act, 1960 before the Labour Court. On the basis of pleadings of the parties, the Labour Court framed various issues including a preliminary issue with respect to legality and validity of holding of departmental enquiry. The Labour Court has also framed an issue 'whether termination order dated 14.1.2010 is liable to be declared illegal? 4. During the pendency of case before the Labour Court, an application was filed by the employee for deleting the issue with regard to legality and validity of holding of enquiry on the ground that no such enquiry was ever conducted by the respondent establishment before passing the order of termination against him. 4. During the pendency of case before the Labour Court, an application was filed by the employee for deleting the issue with regard to legality and validity of holding of enquiry on the ground that no such enquiry was ever conducted by the respondent establishment before passing the order of termination against him. After hearing both the parties on the said application, the Labour Court allowed the same and deleted the preliminary issue as framed. Said order of deletion of preliminary issue was not challenged by the respondent establishment before any higher forum. The Labour Court thereafter proceeded to decide two issues on merits i.e. whether the termination order of the employee was illegal; and, whether the employee was entitled for reinstatement with back wages and other consequential benefits? 5. The delinquent employee examined himself as witness, whereas respondent establishment examined one witness namely Bhawbhuti Prasad Modi (NAW-1). 6. The Labour Court after considering the evidence and material available on record arrived at a conclusion that the order of termination passed by the respondent establishment is bad and illegal for the reason that the respondent establishment had neither filed complaint made against the employee nor proved the admission register and mark sheet in accordance with law because the Headmaster, who had issued the mark sheet & admission register, has not been examined before the Labour Court. In substance, the Labour Court arrived at a conclusion that the charges as mentioned in the notice (charge sheet) could not be proved and therefore set aside the order of termination and directed for reinstatement of deceased employee in service with back wages. 7. The order passed by the Labour Court was challenged by the respondent establishment before the Industrial Court and the Industrial Court also after considering the entire material available on record has dismissed the appeal and affirmed the order passed by the Labour Court against which a writ petition was preferred by the respondent establishment before this Court, which came to be registered as WPL No.6325/11, and the same was allowed by the learned Single Judge vide order impugned. The learned Single Judge concluded that as the Labour Court has arrived at a conclusion that the departmental enquiry against the deceased employee has not been initiated in accordance with the procedure, therefore, from the very inception the enquiry itself is vitiated. The learned Single Judge concluded that as the Labour Court has arrived at a conclusion that the departmental enquiry against the deceased employee has not been initiated in accordance with the procedure, therefore, from the very inception the enquiry itself is vitiated. It has been further held that when the Labour Court recorded that the departmental enquiry initiated against the employee on the charges levelled against him is illegal and violative of the principles of natural justice. Thus, after coming to the aforementioned conclusions the Labour Court ought to have recorded fresh evidence with respect to the charges on merits. Under these circumstances, the learned Single Judge set aside the orders passed by the Labour Court as well as the Industrial Court and remanded back the matter to the Labour Court for taking decision afresh on merits after providing opportunity to the respondent establishment to prove the misconduct. 8. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant submits that present is the case where order of termination from service has been passed without conducting departmental enquiry i.e. without affording proper opportunity of hearing, to adduce evidence (oral & documentary) with respect to the charges levelled against him and to cross-examine the witnesses, which is a sine qua non for proving the charges against a delinquent employee, and therefore the Labour Court has rightly set aside the order of termination passed against the deceased employee. He further submits that the Labour Court had framed issues on merits with regard to legality and validity of the order of termination and also with respect to entitlement of the delinquent employee to be reinstated in service with back wages. Issue with regard to legality and validity of holding of departmental enquiry had also been framed. He argued that issue with respect to legality and validity of the departmental enquiry was deleted by the Labour Court in presence of the respondent establishment and no objection whatsoever has been raised by them at that point of time. Even the order of deletion was not challenged at appropriate stage by the respondent establishment before the appellate authority and therefore the respondent establishment is estopped from raising said ground at the appellate stage. Even the order of deletion was not challenged at appropriate stage by the respondent establishment before the appellate authority and therefore the respondent establishment is estopped from raising said ground at the appellate stage. He further submitted that the Labour Court has not passed the order only on the ground that departmental enquiry was vitiated but the order of reinstatement was passed after holding the order of termination to be illegal and void ab initio. He has further submitted that the Labour Court has proceeded strictly in accordance with law and passed the order of reinstatement after affording opportunity to the respondent establishment to adduce evidence on the said issue. 9. Supporting the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge, it has been argued by learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No.1 that the Labour Court has committed an illegality in deleting the issue with regard to legality and validity of departmental enquiry conducted by the department. He further submits that after arriving at a conclusion that the departmental enquiry conducted by the department was void, illegal and in violation of the principles of natural justice, the Labour Court ought to have provided fresh opportunity to the department to prove the charges levelled against the employee, which has not been done. 10. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned order. 11. In view of the facts emerging from the records, we are considering as to whether the departmental enquiry, as provided under the law, has been conducted by the respondent department or not? 12. Undisputedly, the respondent department had issued charge sheet on the letter-head dated 11.12.2009 and the charge sheet is concluded that the employee had made himself liable under Rule 14 of the Chhattisgarh Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1966 for disciplinary action. 12. Undisputedly, the respondent department had issued charge sheet on the letter-head dated 11.12.2009 and the charge sheet is concluded that the employee had made himself liable under Rule 14 of the Chhattisgarh Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1966 for disciplinary action. Said charge sheet reads as under:- ^^vkjksi i= Jh nsohnhu frokjh la;a= lgk;d Js.kh&nks ds fo#/n fuEu vkjksi vkjksfir fd;k tkrk gS A vkjksi Ø- 1 ;g gS fd vkids }kjk ÁFke in LFkkiuk@fu;qfDr ds le; lsok iqfLrdk esa mDr ikl dh vad lwph ds vk/kkj ij tUe frfFk ntZ dh xbZ gS A dbZ ckj ekaxus ds ckn Hkh vkius viuh 8 oha ikl dh vadlwph dh ewy Áfrfyfi bl dk;kZy; esa tek ugha djokbZ gS ftlls Árhr gksrk gS fd tUe frfFk rFkk ‘kS{kf.kd ;ksX;rk laca/k esa vkius e.My dks xqejkg djus dh dskf’k’k dh gS A ;g d`R; flfoy lsok ¼oxhZdj.k] fu;a=.k rFkk vihy½ fu;e 1966 ds fu;e 14 dk Li”V mYy?kau gS A vr% vkius Lor% dks flfoy lsok ¼oxhZdj.k] fu;a=.k rFkk vihy½ fu;e 1966 ds fu;e 14 ds rgr Lo;a dks vuq’kklkukRed dk;Zokgh dk ik= cuk;k gS A ** 13. A glance of the charge sheet quoted above reveals that neither the charges nor the proposed punishment to be imposed on the delinquent has been specifically mentioned in it. Charge sheet also does not contain the list of witnesses, list of documents etc. In fact, it is only a letter and not even a show-cause notice as no reply was asked to be filed and even it only mentions that the employee made himself liable for disciplinary action. Respondent department had filed many documents along with writ petition showing the proceedings for passing the order of termination but the documents showing appointment of enquiry officer, presenting officer, article of charges, list of witnesses & documents etc. have not been filed, whereas enquiry report has been submitted in which it has been mentioned that on the basis of records, the charge of getting employment based on forged certificate was found proved. Enquiry report further states that there was difference in the date of birth mentioned in service record and document submitted by the employee i.e. certificate obtained from the Headmaster. The order of termination was passed on 14.1.2010 i.e. within 28 days of issuance of so-called charge sheet, without conducting departmental enquiry as provided under the law. Enquiry report further states that there was difference in the date of birth mentioned in service record and document submitted by the employee i.e. certificate obtained from the Headmaster. The order of termination was passed on 14.1.2010 i.e. within 28 days of issuance of so-called charge sheet, without conducting departmental enquiry as provided under the law. Even, socalled enquiry report is infact a fact finding enquiry and not departmental enquiry. 14. From the documents available on record we have no hesitation in holding that the document (Annexure P-6) cannot be said to be a charge sheet issued for initiation of any departmental enquiry. No material to show that any enquiry officer is appointment. No evidence was recorded, no opportunity of hearing was provided to the delinquent employee before passing the order of termination against him. Thus, it appears that present is not a case of holding an illegal enquiry but it is a case of no departmental enquiry before passing the order of termination against an employee. 15. Learned counsel for respondent No.1 fairly submits that apart from the documents annexed along with the writ petition with respect to so-called departmental enquiry in pursuance of which an order of termination was passed, no proceeding was initiated against the delinquent employee. In view of this submission and minute perusal of the documents goes to show that no departmental enquiry, as provided under the law, has been conducted against the deceased employee and it appears that for this reason only the respondent department has not challenged the order deleting the preliminary issue with respect to validity and legality of holding of departmental enquiry and decided to contest the case on merits. 16. Present is not the case where the order of reinstatement has been passed only on the ground that departmental enquiry was vitiated but specific issues on merits of the case with respect to validity and legality of the order of termination have been framed along with entitlement of the employee for reinstatement in service with back wages. 16. Present is not the case where the order of reinstatement has been passed only on the ground that departmental enquiry was vitiated but specific issues on merits of the case with respect to validity and legality of the order of termination have been framed along with entitlement of the employee for reinstatement in service with back wages. The issues framed by the Labour Court reads as follows:- ^^1- D;k vukosnd }kjk vkosnd ds fo#/n ikfjr c[kkZLrxh vkns’k fnukad&14-01-2010 voS/k ?kksf”kr fd, tkus ;ksX; gS \ 2- D;k vkosnd iwoZHkkoh osru ,ao vU; vkuq”kafxd ykHk lfgr lsok esa iqufuZ;ksftr fd, tkus dk vf/kdkjh gS \ 3- lgk;rk ,oa okn O;;\ vfrfjDr okn Á’u 4- D;k vukosnd }kjk vkosnd ds fo#/n dh xbZ foHkkxh; tkap dh dk;Zokgh voS/kkfud gksus ls fujLr fd;s tkus ;ksX; gS A** 17. After sometime the Labour Court looking to the facts and circumstances of the case deleted Issue No.4, which relates to departmental enquiry, vide its order dated 17.9.2010 in presence of the employer's advocate. The first witness on behalf of the employer was examined on 25.2.2011 i.e. after about 5 months from the date of deletion of issue questioning the departmental enquiry. At the top of the deposition sheet (Annexure P-5 to the petition), it is clearly mentioned that "nonapplicants evidence on merits'. Perusal of deposition sheet of Witness No.1-Bhawbhuti Prasad Modi (Superintending Engineer) clearly reveals that he was well aware of the fact that he has to give evidence on merits of the case and he got his statement recorded before the Labour Court. 18. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of like nature has laid down the law that the employer should be given an opportunity to prove the charges before the Court itself if the Court comes to the conclusion that the departmental enquiry is vitiated by law on any ground. In the case in hand, the Labour Court by framing the aforementioned issues have proceeded in accordance with law and provided an opportunity to the employer to prove the charges before the Court itself. 19. In the case in hand, the Labour Court by framing the aforementioned issues have proceeded in accordance with law and provided an opportunity to the employer to prove the charges before the Court itself. 19. Though specific issues with respect to the allegation was not framed but the respondent department was aware of the fact that what they have to prove before the Labour Court and only thereafter they entered into the witness box and examined one witness namely Bhawbhuti Prasad Modi (NAW-1), who was Superintending Engineer of the respondent department. But the Issue No.1 clearly spells "whether the termination order dated 14.1.2010 passed by non-applicant against applicant is liable to be declared illegal?". From perusal of the deposition (Annexure P-5 to the writ petition) of said Bhawbhuti Prasad (NAW-1), it is clear that this witness has admitted that documents were not supplied to the delinquent employee nor any document was submitted before the Labour Court nor the statement of Headmaster has been recorded as evidence. It is also evident that even the service book containing date of birth of the employee has not been produced before the Court. 20. The copy of the award filed along with writ petition does not mention about exhibits of the documents said to be relied on by the respondent. Respondent department entered into the witness box with the knowledge as to what they will have to prove before the Court but they have not adduced any cogent and reliable piece of evidence before the labour Court to prove Issue No.1. 21. We have considered the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the matter of Workmen vs. Motipur Sugar Factory reported in, (1965) AIR SC 1803. Para 32 (4) of which is reproduced herein below:- "32. (4) Even if no enquiry has been held by an employer or if the enquiry held by him is found to be defective, the Tribunal in order to satisfy itself about the legality and validity of the order, had to give an opportunity to the employer and employee to adduce evidence before it. It is open to the employer to adduce evidence for the first time justifying him action, and it is open to the employee to adduce evidence contra. It is open to the employer to adduce evidence for the first time justifying him action, and it is open to the employee to adduce evidence contra. (5) The effect of an employer not holding an enquiry is that the Tribunal would not have to consider only whether there was a prima facie case. On the other hand, the issue about the merits of the impugned order of dismissal or discharge is at large before the Tribunal and the latter, on the evidence adduced before it, has to decide for itself whether the misconduct alleged is proved. In such cases, the point about the exercise of managerial functions does not arise at all. A case of defective enquiry stands on the same footing as no enquiry. (6) The Tribunal gets jurisdiction to consider the evidence placed before it for the first time in justification of the action taken only, if no enquiry has been held or after the enquiry conducted by an employer is found to be defective. (7) It has never been recognized that the Tribunal should straightaway, without anything more, direct reinstatement of a dismissed or discharged employee, once it is found that no domestic enquiry has been held or the said enquiry is found to be defective. (8) An employer, who wants to avail himself of the opportunity of adducing evidence for the firs time before the Tribunal to justify his action, should ask for it at the appropriate stage. If such an opportunity is asked for, the Tribunal has no power to refuse. The giving of an opportunity to an employer to adduce evidence for the first time before the Tribunal is in the interest of both the management and the employee and to enable the Tribunal itself to be satisfied bout the alleged misconduct. (9) Once the misconduct is proved either in the enquiry conducted by an employer or by the evidence placed before a Tribunal for the first time, punishment imposed cannot be interfered with by the Tribunal except in cases where the punishment is so harsh and as to suggest victimisation." 22. (9) Once the misconduct is proved either in the enquiry conducted by an employer or by the evidence placed before a Tribunal for the first time, punishment imposed cannot be interfered with by the Tribunal except in cases where the punishment is so harsh and as to suggest victimisation." 22. In view of above, now the question which arises for consideration of this Court is whether the Labour Court provided an opportunity to the employer to adduce evidence before it to satisfy itself about the legality and validity of the order of termination, as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Para 32 (4)of the judgment passed in Workmen (supra)? 23. In the case in hand, the Labour Court had framed specific issues with respect to the validity and legality of the order of termination on which the employer was granted opportunity to lead evidence and thus the labour Court had proceeded in accordance with law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and also granted an opportunity to the employer to prove the charges on which order of termination was passed. 24. We do not find that the proceedings initiated by the Labour Court was contrary to law as it is a case of passing of termination order without conducting enquiry and the Labour Court had afforded opportunity of hearing to prove charges forming basis of the order of termination passed by the employer. 25. Recently in the matter of Kurukshetra University v. Prithvi Singh reported in, (2018) 4 SCC 483 the Hon'ble Apex Court, after considering its earlier decision on the issue, has held that the Labour Court should provide an opportunity to prove charge which is basis of passing an order of termination. "18. If the domestic inquiry was held illegal and improper then the next question, which arose for consideration, was whether to allow the appellant (employer) to prove the misconduct/ charge before the Labour Court on merits by adducing independent evidence against the respondent (employee). The appellant was entitled to do so after praying for an opportunity to allow them to lead evidence and pleading the misconduct in the written statement. (see- also Para 33 at page 1665/66 of Shankar's case(supra))." 26. The appellant was entitled to do so after praying for an opportunity to allow them to lead evidence and pleading the misconduct in the written statement. (see- also Para 33 at page 1665/66 of Shankar's case(supra))." 26. In the instant case, no departmental enquiry was conducted and therefore the parties have agreed to contest the case on merits to prove the charges of so-called charge sheet and also led evidence in support of their respective cases on merits including on Issue No.1. From perusal of the entire record available and submissions made by learned counsel, we are unable to accept that the employer was not granted an opportunity to prove the charges so levelled by them and the order of termination to be just and in accordance with law. 27. Learned Single Judge has only considered the deletion of an issue with respect to legality and validity of holding of departmental enquiry ignoring that infact in the case in hand the respondent department has not conducted any departmental enquiry as provided under the law. Learned Single Judge has also failed to consider that the labour Court has provided an opportunity to the employer to lead evidence in support of its case of termination, but the respondent employer has not produced any document before the Court for proving the misconduct committed by the employee which is also reflected from the deposition sheet filed along with the writ petition as Annexure P-5 wherein there is no mention of exhibits of any documents. 28. In view of above discussions, it is amply clear that the department even after getting an opportunity to prove charges failed to do so by producing clinching and admissible evidence on record and further taking note of the fact that during the pendency of case for pronouncement of order, the delinquent employee died on 1.7.2017 whereas the order was pronounced on 22.8.2017, we do not find any illegality or infirmity in the orders passed by the Labour Court. We therefore set aside the impugned order dated 22.8.2017 (Annexure A-1) passed by the learned Single Judge and affirm the orders passed by the Industrial Court as also the Labour Court. 29. The writ appeal is allowed. No order as to costs.