JUDGMENT : Heard. 2. By means of present writ petition, a challenge has been made to the award dated 11.02.2020 published on 26.06.2020 as also to the order dated 29.03.2019 passed by the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Uttar Pradesh, Lucknow in Adjudication Case No. 48 of 2004 (Devi Shankar Mishra vs. ITI Limited, Raebareli). The consequential relief has also been sought in the instant writ petition, which is as under:- "(ii) Issue a writ of mandamus or a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus to command the opposite parties not to give effect to the award dated 11.02.2020 passed by the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Uttar Pradesh, Lucknow contained as Annexure No.1 to the writ petition." 3. The subject matter of the present petition relates to removal of opposite party No. 1/Devi Shankar Mishra. At relevant time, as appears from the records, the opposite party No. 1/Devi Shankar Mishra was the employee of the Switch Assembly Shop of the petitioner and was also the President of Employees' Union of Petitioner. 4. Prior to removal vide order dated 01.03.1990, the opposite party No. 1/Devi Shankar Mishra was suspended vide order dated 28.04.1984 and thereafter, a charge sheet dated 30.04.1984 was served upon him for holding "Regular Enquiry" and in response to the same, the delinquent submitted his reply on 14.05.1984. 5. Facts related to initiation of aforesaid disciplinary proceedings, as per management/petitioner, as appears from the record are that on 27.04.1984 the opposite party No. 1/Devi Shankar Mishra, President of Workers' Union, alongwith 10-15 employees' of the petitioner entered the office/chamber of one Sri R.C. Gupta, Material Manager, in relation to cause related to transfer of employees' and there the opposite party No. 1/Devi Shankar Mishra misbehaved with Sri R.C.Gupta and thereafter, on a complaint of Sri R.C. Gupta the opposite party No. 1/Devi Shankar Mishra was subjected to disciplinary proceedings. 6. Enquiry Committee was constituted to hold the enquiry against the opposite party No. 1/Devi Shankar Mishra. The Enquiry Committee after conclusion of enquiry, which appears to be concluded in August, 1985, submitted its report vide letter dated 15.02.1988, signed on 25.02.1988. The enquiry report is extracted herein below:- "Under-signed have been appointed the members of the enquiry committee to enquire into the charges leveled against Shri D.S. Mishra, St. The Enquiry Committee after conclusion of enquiry, which appears to be concluded in August, 1985, submitted its report vide letter dated 15.02.1988, signed on 25.02.1988. The enquiry report is extracted herein below:- "Under-signed have been appointed the members of the enquiry committee to enquire into the charges leveled against Shri D.S. Mishra, St. No. 2884-72 an employee of the Switch Assembly shop vide letter No. AGM(S)/10, dated end July, 1984 vide charge sheet no. AGM(S)/10 dated 30-4-1984 and Shri R.C. Saxena, APem (A) was appointed as presenting officer to represent on behalf of the Management and present the case before enquiry committee. After receipt of the orders of enquiry parties i.e. charge sheeted employee Shri D.S. Mishra, Shri R.C. Saxena Presenting Officer were intimated vide committee's letter DGM(Projy/30 dated 13-9-1984 fixing the date of enquiry as 29-9-1984 at 10.00 AM in the Engineering Building, Crossbar. On the date fixed and duly informed, the enquiry was started in the present of the parties i.c. charge sheeted employee and management representation. Delinquent employee has placed a request on 27.9.1981 before the enquiry committee that he may be allowed to engage a co-worker. He was permitted for the same. On 5-10- 1984 delinquent employee nominated Shri A.K. Srivastava, St. No. 1435-72 for pleading his case before the enquiry committee. His request was considered and he was allowed to engage the coworker named above and was asked to be present on 12.10.1984 alongwith his representation before the enquiry committee on 11.10.1984 the charge sheeted employee has moved an application as his representative shall be on leave on 12-10-1984 hence the enquiry be adjourned for some other date. The committee has agreed to his request and allowed the adjournment fixing the date of hearing as 19-10-1984. On 19-10-1984 charge sheeted has moved an application for adjournment of the enquiry proceedings on the grounds that his representative is not present in the enquiry. In the interest of justice the proceedings were postponed and 28.10.1984 was fixed for enquiry as last and final date for hearing. On 28.10.1984 committee proceeded with the enquiry and presenting officer has presented the case before the enquiry committee in the presence of charge sheeted employee and his representative. The charge sheeted was read over the committee before the charge sheeted employee and confirmed whether the charges were admitted by the delinquent employee in the presence of his representative. On 28.10.1984 committee proceeded with the enquiry and presenting officer has presented the case before the enquiry committee in the presence of charge sheeted employee and his representative. The charge sheeted was read over the committee before the charge sheeted employee and confirmed whether the charges were admitted by the delinquent employee in the presence of his representative. Charge sheeted employee has decided from the charges hence date was fixed for evidence of the management. As per the charge sheeted under enquiry following charges were leveled against Shri D.S. Mishra. On 27.04.1984 at 10.45 A.M. Shri D.S. Mishra alongwith 10, 15 persons entered in the chamber of Shri R.C. Gupta, MM-S without permission and insisted for cancellation of transfer order of three employees of purchase department Shri Gupta told that these orders were passed in the interest of departmental work Shri Mishra was irritated and abused Shri Gupta. Being leader group he stood on the table of Shri Gupta and assaulted him by his leg on the left side of the face. These charges are leveled for violation of clause 14.2; 9:16; 32; 33; 42; 46 and 54 of the company's certified standing orders. In support of the charges following witnesses were examined by the presenting officer on behalf of the Management. 1. R.C. Gupta 2. B.D. Yadav 3. Raja Ram Singh 4. D.C. Bansal 5. Shri P.P. Gupta 6. Shri B.N. Sinha 7. Shri H.R. Qurashi 8. Shri C.B. Hariharan Besides above following documents were filed on behalf of the Management by the presenting officer before the enquiry committee. 1. Copy of the complaint submitted by MM(S) to AGM (S) on 27.4.1984. E-1(a) 2. Copy of the charge sheet issued by competent Authority E-2 3. Photo copy of the relieving orders of the employees of the Purchase Department. E-2 4. Copy of the office order transferring the employees, passed by MM(S). E-3 5. Photo copy of the representation given by the employees of Purchase Department for rotational transfers. E-3(a) In defence Shri D.S. Mishra has not produced any witness. He has not given his statement except to the denial of the charges. On the very day of the enquiry. Committee has gone through the statements of the witnesses produced by the parties and evidence available on the records. E-3(a) In defence Shri D.S. Mishra has not produced any witness. He has not given his statement except to the denial of the charges. On the very day of the enquiry. Committee has gone through the statements of the witnesses produced by the parties and evidence available on the records. Shri R.C. Gupta has been stated in his examination in Chief as reported vide his compliant, Exhibit E-1, on 27.04.1984 at about 10.45 A.M. Shri D.S. Mishra entered in his room without any information or appointment alongwith 10-15 employees. Shri Mishra has abused and asked to withdraw the transfer orders and assaulted on his face at the left. Till he tried to understand Shri Mishra alongwith his companions went cut of his room. He further stated that the transfer orders were issued in the interest of departmental work for which he was competent to pass and these transfers were within the department under his jurisdiction. Shri A.K. Srivastava representative of the charge sheeted employee has cross-examined Shri R.C. Gupta in the presence of the charge sheeted employee at length. Shri Gupta during cross examination has described the situation and fact of the occurrence. Nothing adverse could be observed either in his examination in chief or cross examination. Witness No.2 to 8:- witness No.2 to 8 produced by the presenting officer on behalf of the management were examined before the enquiry committee in the presence of the delinquent employee and were cross examined by the representative of the charge sheeted employee. All the witnesses have stated that they have seen the rush at about 10.45 A.M. to 11.00 A.M. in the gallery near the chamber of Shri R.C. Gupta the then materials Manager. Witness No.2:- Shri B.D. Yadav has stated that he was coming from cash officer just after the occurrence Shri R.C. Gupta told him regarding the occurrence. He has seen Shri D.S. Mishra while going out side abusing in unparlimentary language. During cross examination he told that amongst the persons he recognized only Shri D.S. Mishra. Witness No.3:- Shri Raja Ram Singh stated that Shri R.C. Gupta told him regarding the occurance when he came back from canteen where he was gone for bringing the tea. Witness No.4:- Shri D.C. Bansal stated that he has seen the rush going out side he went in the chamber of Shri Gupta who told him regarding the occurance. Witness No.3:- Shri Raja Ram Singh stated that Shri R.C. Gupta told him regarding the occurance when he came back from canteen where he was gone for bringing the tea. Witness No.4:- Shri D.C. Bansal stated that he has seen the rush going out side he went in the chamber of Shri Gupta who told him regarding the occurance. Witness No.5:- Shri P.P. Arora has stated that he some noise in the gallery, he came out from his room and asked from the persons they told him that some untoward things happened in the chamber of Shri Gupta who told him that Shri D.S. Mishra has abused and assaulted him. Witness No.6:- Shri B.N. Sinha has outside his room, he came 11.00 hrs, he heard some noise outside his room, he came out of his room and saw that rush was going from the gallery. He went in the room of Shri R.C. Gupta who told that Shri D.S. Mishra has assaulted him. Witness No.7:- Shri H.R. Qureshi has stated that he has heard some noise in the gallery. Somebody told him that an employee has assaulted Shri R.C. Gupta. He went in the chamber of Shri Gupta who told him that Shri Mishra has assaulted him. Witness No.8:- Shri C.B. Hariharan has stated that he was going to Bills sections, he saw a rush in the gallery of Purchase Department. Somebody told him that some untoward has happened in the chamber of Shri R.C. Gupta, MM(8). FINDINGS:- From the statements of the witness produced before the enquiry committee it is clear that the incident took place and a group of persons have created the disturbances near the Purchase Department on 27.4.1984 between 10.00 AM-11.00 AM. The witnesses have corroborated the incidence of riotous behaviour of the employees. Noting adverse of the occurance could be worked out neither in the cross examination from the management witnesses nor produced by the charge sheeted employee himself. From the statement of Shri R.C. Gupta, it is abundantly clear that Shri D.S. Mishra has created the circumstances of incident and led the group of persons involved in the riotous activities and have caused the assault. Contrary to this during cross examination nothing as absence or enmity has been pleaded or put before the complainant or observes of the occurance examined as witnesses before the enquiry committee. Contrary to this during cross examination nothing as absence or enmity has been pleaded or put before the complainant or observes of the occurance examined as witnesses before the enquiry committee. Opportunities to explain in writing as well as cross examination was availed by the charge sheeted employee but nothing on records was produced as such in defence. The documents produced on behalf of the Management exhibited as Ex-1 to E-4 relate the circumstance to the truth of the occurance in the absence of his specific denial by the charge sheeted employee. There is no reason to disbelieve the statement of Shri R.C. Gupta which stood unrebutted during the enquiry proceedings from the side of charge sheeted employees. No evidence could be produced by the charge sheeted employee contrary to the belief that the episode created by the employees, was due to transfer order. The circumstantial evidence prove the happenings beyond doubt, as well as the silence of the charge sheeted employee on the charges reflect the acceptance of the charges. In view of the observations made above the committee has deeply examined the evidence on record and documents filed before the enquiry committee and finds that the charges leveled vide charge sheeted no. AGM(S)/10 dated 30-4-1984 against Shri D.S. Mishra are proved beyond doubt. The report is submitted herewith." 7. After submission of enquiry report vide letter dated 15.02.1988, the opposite party No. 1/Devi Shankar Mishra was removed vide order of removal from service dated 01.03.1990 i.e. after about more than five years from submission of enquiry report. AGM(S)/10 dated 30-4-1984 against Shri D.S. Mishra are proved beyond doubt. The report is submitted herewith." 7. After submission of enquiry report vide letter dated 15.02.1988, the opposite party No. 1/Devi Shankar Mishra was removed vide order of removal from service dated 01.03.1990 i.e. after about more than five years from submission of enquiry report. The order of removal dated 01.03.1990 reads as under:- ^^bf.M;u VsyhQksu b.MLVªht fyfeVsM] jk;cjsyhA i= la[;k&,e0,0@22@2884@,y0th0,y0 fnukad&01-03-90 1- Jh Mh0,l0 feJk] 2- Jh Mh0,l0 feJk deZpkjh la[;k&2884&72 iq= Lo0 Jh v;ks/;k izlkn feJk }kjk&lh0vkbZ0,l0,Q0 xzke o iksLV&pUnkiqj ftyk&jkcjsyh 3- Jh Mh0,l0 feJk }kjk& Jh ch0ih0 ckyk 850 jQhuxjA jk;cjsyhA vkidks dEiuh ds LFkkbZ vkns'k dh /kkjk&14¼2½] ¼9½] ¼16½] ¼22½] ¼32½] ¼33½] ¼42½] ¼46½ ,oa ¼54½ ds varxZr ,d vkjksi i= la[;k&,0th0,e0&,l-@10 fnukad 30-04-84 nqjkpj.k ds laca/k esa tkjh fd;k x;k Fkk rFkk vkjksiks ds laca/k esa rhu fnu ds vUnj vkidks fy[kk Li"Vhdj.k ekaxk x;k FkkA izkIr Li"Vhdj.k larks"ktud u gksus ds dkj.k vf/kd`r vf/kdkjh }kjk vkjksiksa dh tkap djkus dk fu.kZ; fy;k x;kA tkap ds nkSjku vkidks -----djus dk iw.kZ volj fn;k x;kA tkap esa izLrqr fd;s x;s lk{;ksa ,oa dkxtkrksa ij lko/kkuhiwoZd fopkj djds tkap vf/kdjh us tkap fjiksVZ izLrqr dh gS ,oa tkap esa vkidks vkjksi i= la[;k&,0th0,e0&,l-@10 fnukad 30-04-84 }kjk dEiuh ds LFkkbZ vkns'k dh /kkjk&14¼2½] ¼9½] ¼16½] ¼22½] ¼32½] ¼33½] ¼42½] ¼46½ ,oa ¼54½ ds varxZr yxk;s x;s vkjksiksa dk nks"kh fln~/k ik;k gSA l{ke vf/kdkjh us tkap i=koyh esa miyC/k lk{;ksa] nLrkostksa ij fopkj fd;k ,oa i=koyh esa miyC/k lk{;ksa ds vk/kkj ij tkap vf/kdkjh dh fjiksZV esa yxk gSA vkjksiksa dh xaHkhjrk ,oa vkils lacaf/kr vfHkys[kksa dks ns[krs gq, vkidks dEiuh dh lsok ls fu"dkflr djus dk fu.kZ; fy;k x;k gSA vr% vkidks fnukad 01-03-90 ls dEiuh dh lsok ls fu"dklu ¼fjewoy½ fd;k tkrk gSA ;g vkns'k l{ke vf/kdkjh ds vkns'kkuqlkj tkjh fd;k tkrk gSA^^ 8. Certain facts, which appears to be relevant, regarding enquiry proceedings are as under:- (a) It is to be noted that, as per record, no management witness, except Sri R.C.Gupta (complainant), was present in the office/chamber of complainant when the alleged incident took place. Meaning thereby management witness Nos. 2 to 8 were not eye witnesses of the alleged incident. Certain facts, which appears to be relevant, regarding enquiry proceedings are as under:- (a) It is to be noted that, as per record, no management witness, except Sri R.C.Gupta (complainant), was present in the office/chamber of complainant when the alleged incident took place. Meaning thereby management witness Nos. 2 to 8 were not eye witnesses of the alleged incident. (b) It transpires from the record that the witnesses of management were examined and cross-examined and during enquiry proceedings the opposite party No. 1/Devi Shankar Mishra, vide letter dated 03.03.1985 and 21.03.1985 demanded some documents. However, the same were not provided to the opposite party No. 1/Devi Shankar Mishra. From the records, it also appears that the opposite party No. 1/Devi Shankar Mishra also requested to further cross-examine Sri R.C.Gupta (complainant) and one Sri B.D.Yadav. However, the same were not provided to the opposite party No. 1/Devi Shankar Mishra. From the records, it also appears that the opposite party No. 1/Devi Shankar Mishra also requested to further cross-examine Sri R.C.Gupta (complainant) and one Sri B.D.Yadav. (c) When on 05.05.1985 the issue related to providing the document was raised by opposite party No. 1/Devi Shankar Mishra, the enquiry committee passed the following order:- ^^vkidks i= la[;k ua0 NIL ^^fnukad 21-3-85 ij tkap lfefr us fopkj fd;kA ;fn mlesa ekaxh x;h lwpukvksa dh vko';drk vkxs iM+sxh rks ;g miyC/k djk;h tk;sxhA^^ (d) On 05.05.1985, the enquiry committee also observed as under:- ^^fnuk¡d 5@5@85 IkwoZ lwpuk ds vuqlkj vkt tk¡p dh dk;Zokgh esa fuEufyf[kr yksx mifLFkfr gq,A 1- Jh th0ih0 ik.Ms 2- Jh ih0ds0 dqUnw 3- Jh vkj0lh0 lDlsuk 4- Jh Mh0,l0 feJk ¼deZ0la0&2884&72½ 5- Jh ,0ds0 JhokLro ¼deZ0 la0&1435&72½ pwafd izcU/kd i{k dh vksj ls xokg o ftjg dh dk;Zokgh fiNyh cSBd esa iwjh gks pqdh FkhA vr,o ,d vkjksfir deZpkjh dks vius cpko i{k esa dgus dk ekSdk tk¡p lfefr us fn;kA bl ij cpko i{k us vius nks i=ksa fnuk¡d 3&3&85 o 21&3&85 ds ckjs esa tcko ek¡xkA tk¡p lfefr us mu i=ksa ds fyf[kr tokc ds mijkUr iqu% cpko i{k dks vius cpko esa viuk c;ku o lQkbZ nsus dks dgkA cpko i{k us viuk c;ku o lQkbZ nsus esa vLkeFkZrk izdV dhA tk¡p lfefr us ;g lkj fudkyk fd cpko i{k dks vius cpko ds ckjs esa vc dqN ugh dguk gSA tkWp lfefr }kjk ;g fy[kk tkuk fd vkjksfir deZpkjh dks vius cpko esa dqN ugh dguk gS] vlR; gS D;ksfad fo"k;ksa dk fu.kZ; tkWp lfefr }kjk ugha fd;k x;kA vr% Jh ch0Mh0 ;kno dks iqu% vxyh frfFk ij ftjg gsrq cqyk;s tkus dh d`ik djsaA pwWfd Jh ;kno dk c;ku esjh vuqifLFkfr esa fy;k x;k gSA tks U;k;ksfpr ugh gSA vRk% iqu% ;kno dks ftjg gsrq cqyk;k tk, ftlls vxyh dk;Zokgh gks lds ,oa eq>s ;Fkk'kh?kz U;k; fey ldsA The defendant came with preparation to cross examine Sri R.C.Gupta on some documents which were demanded vide our above letters. The committee could neither produce Sri R.C.Gupta nor provide the documents. The committee could neither produce Sri R.C.Gupta nor provide the documents. In non-availability of documents in absence of Sri Gupta as per defense was not possible hence next date subject to availability of the desired witness and documents is requested please." (e) After 05.05.1985, no date was fixed by the enquiry committee for adducing evidence by charged official/opposite party No. 1/Devi Shankar Mishra. (f) Thus, the enquiry proceedings were closed on 05.05.1985 that too without providing the documents demanded by the opposite party No. 1/Devi Shankar Mishra in terms of order of enquiry committee dated 05.05.1985 and also without providing the opportunity to the charged official/opposite party No. 1/Devi Shankar Mishra to adduce his evidence, if any. 9. It would be appropriate to refer here that the order of suspension dated 28.04.1984 was challenged by the opposite party No. 1/Devi Shankar Mishra before the Labour Court in Adjudication Case No. 32 of 1989. The Labour Court vide its order dated 28.11.1989 set aside the order of suspension and directed the Department to conclude the enquiry within a period of three months from the date of publication of award with further observation that if the enquiry is not conducted in the time specified then the order of suspension would be inoperative and the workman concerned shall be entitled to full wages alongwith increments etc. during enquiry. However, the workman would not be entitled to reinstatement during the enquiry period. 10. It appears that at relevant time the Labour Court was not informed regarding submission of enquiry report vide letter dated 15.02.1988. 11. After submission of enquiry report, the enquiry committee passed the order of removal dated 01.03.1990. The order of removal was challenged by the opposite party No. 1/Devi Shankar Mishra before the Labour Court in Adjudication Case No. 48 of 2004. The Labour Court framed a preliminary issue which is as under:- "(1) Whether the domestic enquiry conducted by the management against the workman is not fair and proper? If so, its effect?" 12. The Labour Court vide its order dated 03.08.2010 decided the issue, as indicated above, in favour of the opposite party No.1-Devi Shankar Mishra by observing that the domestic enquiry was not conducted in fair and proper manner. If so, its effect?" 12. The Labour Court vide its order dated 03.08.2010 decided the issue, as indicated above, in favour of the opposite party No.1-Devi Shankar Mishra by observing that the domestic enquiry was not conducted in fair and proper manner. The observations made in the order dated 03.08.2010 are as under:- ^^le{k ihBklhu vf/kdkjh] Je U;k;ky;] m0iz0] 23&,0ih0lsu jksM] y[kuÅA vfo0fo0la0 48@04 ¼esllZ vkbZ0Vh0vkbZ0 jk;cjsyh cuke muds Jfed ch0,l0 feJk½ dh dk;Zokgh dh lR; izekf.kr izfrfyfiA 3&8&2010 bl okn esa i{kksa ds vuqjks/k ij ?kjsyw tk¡p dh oS/kkfudrk ds laca/k eas fuEufyf[kr izkjfEHkd okn fcUnq fnukad 6-9-06 dks fojfpr fd;k x;k %& Pre. Issue (1) Whether the domestic enquiry conducted by the management against the workman is not fair and proper? Issue (1) Whether the domestic enquiry conducted by the management against the workman is not fair and proper? If so, its effect,?" i{kkas }kjk izkjfEHkd okn fcUnq ij viuas&2 vfHkys[k ,oa ekSf[kd lk{; izLrqr fd;k x;kA ekSf[kd lk{; ds nkSjku Jfed us bl ckr ij tksj fn;k fd tkWp dk;Zokgh ds nkSjku mls mlds }kjk ek¡xs x, vfHkys[k ugha fn; x,] lsok;kstd xokg ds c;ku mldh mifLFkr esa ugha gq, ,oa mlds }kjk tk¡p lfefr dks cnyus dh izkFkZuk Hkh dh x;h] fdUrq tk¡p lfefr ugha cnyh x;h vkSj bl izdkj mls tk¡p esa leqfpr ekSdk ugha fn;k x;kA lsok;kstdksa }kjk IkzLRkqr lk{kh us crk;k fd Jfed dks vkjksi i= fn;k x;k vkSj mlds laca/k esa tk¡p dh x;h] fdUrq ftjg esa lsok;kstd lk{kh us Li"V #i ls dgk fd u rks og tk¡p ds nkSjku mifLFkr Fkk vkSj u gh mls tk¡p dk;Zokgh dh dksbZ tkudkjh gh gSA bl okn esa ftl vf/kdkjh }kjk Tkk¡p dh x;h vkSj ftl vf/kdkjh }kjk tk¡p dk;Zokgh ds nkSjku lsok;kstdksa dk izfrfuf/kRo fd;k x;k Fkk] mu nksuksa vf/kdkfj;ksa dh lsok;kstdksa }kjk bl U;k;ky; ds le{k] tk¡p ds fcUnq ij lk{; gsrq izLrqr ugha fd;k x;k] tcfd ;g nksuksa gh vf/kdkjh tk¡p ds laca/k esa foLr`r dk;Zokgh ds ckjs esa bl U;k;ky; dks eq[; xokg ds ukrs oLrqfLFkfr ls voxr djk ldrs Fks vkns'k fnukad 3-8-10 yxkrkj tkjh &&&&&&&&&&& bu xokgksa ds laca/k esa lsok;kstdksa }kjk crk;k x;k fd ;g vf/kdkjh muds izfr"Bku ls lsokfuo`Rr gks pqds gSa vkSj xokgh gsrq miyC/k ugh gaSA vr% izkjfEHkd okn fcUnq ij dksbZ f}rh; lk{; nsus dh vuqefr ek¡xh x;h] ftls U;k;ky; }kjk Lohdkj fd;k x;k] ijUrq lsok;kstdksa }kjk ftl xokg dks U;k;ky; dh Lohd`fr ds i'pkr izLrqr fd;k x;k] mls u rks tk¡p dk;Zokgh ds ckjs esa dksbZ Kku Fkk vkSj u gh og tk¡p dk;Zokgh ds le; mifLFkr gh FkkA vRk% ,slh n'kk esa Jfedksa }kjk tk¡p dk;Zokgh dh oS/kkfudrk ij mBkl fcUnqvksa dk dksbZ [k.Mu lsok;kstdksa }kjk ugha fd;k x;kA bl izdkj tk¡p dk;Zokgh esa uSlfxZd U;k; ds fl)kUrksa dk iw.kZ #Ik ls ikyu ugha fd;k x;k vkSj lacaf/kr Jfed dks Hkh cpko dk iw.kZ volj ugha iznku fd;k x;kA vr,o Jfed ds fo#) lsok;kstdksa }kjk djkbZ x;h tk¡p dk;Zokgh mfpr ,oa oS/kkfud ugha gSA rnuqlkj izkjfEHkd okn fcUnq fuLrkfjr fd;k tkrk gSA lsok;kstd ;fn pkgsa rks Jfed ds fo#) yxk, x, vkjksiksa dks U;k;ky; ds le{k fl) dj ldrs gSa] ftlds fy, lsok;kstd ekSf[kd lk{; fnukad 11-10-2010 fu/kkZfjr dh tkrh gSA^^ 13. The order dated 03.08.2010 was challenged by the petitioner before this Court in Writ Petition No. 6317 (M/S) of 2010 (Indian Telephone Industires Limited, Raibareli Thru. A.G.M. vs. Devi Shankar Mishra And Another), which was disposed of vide order dated 29.09.2011. The order dated 29.09.2011 on reproduction reads as under:- "The petitioner is aggrieved with the order dated 3rd of August, 2010, passed by the labour court to the extent it decides the issue taking the same, as a preliminary issue, framed by the Court is reproduced herein:- "Pre. Issue (1) Whether the domestic enquiry conducted by the management against the workman is not fair and proper? If so, its effect,?" Upon perusal of the record, I find that it is the main issue, which requires adjudication of the labour court only after adducing the evidences by the parties, whereas the labour court has proceeded to decide the same taking it as preliminary issue and has also given finding which may affect the proceeding of the case on merit. Though after considering the facts of the case, I am not inclined to interfere in the proceeding of the labour court, but I am of the view that the observation as well as finding of the labour court, which is in the form of decision on the preliminary issue may affect the proceeding of the case on merit as the labour court has expressed its final opinion. Therefore, the order impugned to the extent it provides that, the enquiry proceeding against the workman concerned is not proper and legal, is hereby quashed with the direction that the observation made by the labour court for deciding the said issue, at this stage, shall have no bearing to decide the case on merit. The parties are directed to adduce the evidences as has been asked for and cooperate in the proceeding of the labour court. With the aforesaid observation, the writ petition is partly allowed." 14. It appears from the order dated 29.09.2011 that this Court quashed the observations of the Labour Court in regard to holding the enquiry and directed the Labour Court to decide the issue afresh and parties were also directed to adduce the evidence before the Labour Court. With the aforesaid observation, the writ petition is partly allowed." 14. It appears from the order dated 29.09.2011 that this Court quashed the observations of the Labour Court in regard to holding the enquiry and directed the Labour Court to decide the issue afresh and parties were also directed to adduce the evidence before the Labour Court. Considering the observations of this Court in the order dated 29.09.2011, the Labour Court decided the preliminary issue, as indicated above, afresh and held that the domestic enquiry was not conducted in fair and proper manner against the opposite party No.1-Devi Shankar Mishra. Considering the observations of this Court in the order dated 29.09.2011, the Labour Court decided the preliminary issue, as indicated above, afresh and held that the domestic enquiry was not conducted in fair and proper manner against the opposite party No.1-Devi Shankar Mishra. The relevant observations of the Labour Court dated 29.03.2019 on reproduction reads as under:- ^^17&i=koyh ij miyC/k mHk; i{kksa ds fyf[kr dFku] izfrmRrj] vfHkys[kksa rFkk ekSf[kd lk{;ksa ,o ekSf[kd cgl o Jfed dh fyf[kr cgl dk ifj'khyu fd;k ftlls eSa bl fu"d"kZ ij igwWpk gwW fd ?kjsyw tkap dk;Zokgh nks"kiw.kZ gS D;ksfd& 1& Jfed ds fyf[kr dFku ds izLrj&13 esa ¼1½ ls ¼,p ,p½ esa fn, x, Li"V rF;ksa dk [kUMu lsok;kstd }kjk vius izfrmRrj 'kiFki= esa Li"V #i ls ugh fd;k x;k gSA 2& tkWp esa Jfed dks eq[; f'kdk;rdrkZ Jh vkj0lh0 xqIrk o eq[; lk{kh oh0Mh0 ;kno ls iqu% ftjg ds volj Jfed dks ugh fn;k x;k tks fd ml le; djk;k x;k Fkk] tc ;k rks Jfed mifLFkr Fkk ;k fQj Jfed dk izfrfuf/k nksuks mifLFkr ugh Fks] ;g vfookfnr gSA 3& tkWp esa Jfed dk izkFkZuk i= fnukad 3-3-85 iz0bZ&11 ftlesa izkFkZuk dh x;h fd Jfed dh c;ku o ftjg dh izfr nh tk, rFkk ohMh ;kno ls ftjg dk ekSdk fn;k tk, dks iw.kZ #is.k Lohdkj ugh fd;k x;k ;g Hkh vfookfnr gS fd Jfed dks tkWp dh dk;Zokgh izR;sd fnu ugh nh tkrh Fkh] mlds ekWxs tkus ij ukSdjh ls fudkys tkus ds ckn 18-9-90 dks nh x;h gSA Jfed ds }kjk fn, x, bl dFku o lk{; dk ikoyh ij dksbZ [kUMu miyC/k ugha gSA 4& tkWp lfefr }kjk iz0bZ0&13 vkns'k fnukad 5-5-85 }kjk Jfed ds mijksDRk izkFkZuk i= ij vkns'k ikfjr fd;k x;k fd oh0Mh0 ;kno lk{kh dks nqckjk cqyk, tkus dh vuqefr ugha nsrh gS ysfdu Hkfo"; esa ,slh dksbZ ifjfLFkfr ns[kh tk,xh muds dqN Li"Vhdj.k dh vko';drk rks lfefr fu.kZ; ysxhA ,slk izrhr gksrk gS fd tkWp lfefr }kjk Jfed ds izkFkZuk i= ij tkWp esa fu;qDr izLrqrdrkZ vf/kdkjh ls dksbZ vkifRr fy, fcuk lh/ks 'kLo;a tokc fn;k x;k gS tks fd i{kikriw.kZ izrhr gksrk gSA 5&tkWp lfefr ds i= bZ0bZ0&14 }kjk Jfed }kjk exka, x, gkftjh jftLVj vkfn vfHkys[k tk i= fnukad bZ0bZ0&12 gS] ij vkns'k fd ;fn blesa ekWxh x;h lwpukvksa dh vko';drk gksxh tks ;g miyC/k djk;k tk,xk ysfdu lEiw.kZ tkWp vof/k esa ;k tkWp dk;Zokgh es dgh dksbZ ,slk vfHkys[k miyC/k ugh gS ftlls ;g lkfcr gksrk gks fd Jfed dks ekWxs x, vfHkys[k] mls miyC/k djk, x, gksaA 6& tkWp dh dk;Zokgh fnukad 5-5-85 vfr egRoiw.kZ gS D;ksafd blh fnu mijksDRk nksuks vkns'k iz0bZ0&13 o iz0bZ0&15 ikfjr fd, x,] mlh fnu dh izkslhfMaXl ij dk;Zokgh fuEuor gS & pwWfd izcU/ku i{k dh vksj ls xokg o ftjg dh dk;Zokgh fiNyh cSBd esa iwjh gks pqdh FkhA vr,o vkjksfir deZpkjh dks vius cpko i{k dk ekSdk tkWp lfefr us fn;kA blij cpko i{k us vius nks i=ksa 3-3-85 o 21-3-85 ds ckjs esa tokc ds mijkUr cpko i{k dks vius i{k esa c;ku o lQkbZ nsus dks dgkA cpko i{k us viuk o lQkbZ nsus dh vlEkFkZrk O;Dr dhA tkWp lfefr us lkj fudkyk fd cpko i{k dks vius Ik{k esa dqN ugh dguk gSA Jfed Lo;a mifLFkr Fkk o izfrfuf/k Hkh nksuks us tkWp lfefr dh dk;Zokgh ij ,rjkt trk;k rFkk tkWp dk;Zokgh ij vkifRr fy[khA Jfed Mh0,l0 feJk dh vkifRr tkWp lfefr }kjk ;g fy[kk tkuk fd vkjksfir deZpkjh dks vius cpko esa dqN ugh dguk gS] vlR; gS D;ksfd fo"k;ksa dk fu.kZ; tkWp lfefr }kjk ugha fd;k x;kA vr% Jh ch0Mh0 ;kno dks iqu% vxyh frfFk ij ftjg gsrq cqyk;s tkus dh d`ik djsaA pwWfd Jh ch0Mh0 ;kno dk c;ku esjh vuqifLFkfr esa gqvk gSA tks U;k;ksfpr ugh gSA vRk% iqu% Jh oh0Mh0 ;kno dks ftjg gsrq cqyk;k tk, ftlls vxyh dk;Zokgh gks lds ,oa eq>s ;Fkk'kh?kz U;k; fey ldsA Jfed izfrfuf/k dh vkifRr "The defendant come with preparation to cross examine Sri R.C. Gupta on some documents demanded vide our above letters. The committee could not the produce. R.C. Gupta for defence is not possible hence next date subject to availability of desired documents and unrequested please." fnukad 5-5-85 dks izFke ckj Jfed dks lk{; dk ekSdk nsuk dgk x;k mlus tc mijksDr vkifRr;kW fy[kh] ftlls ukjkt gksdj u rks tkWp esa vxyh frfFk fu;r dh x;h vkSj bl rjg fcuk izLrqrdrkZ vf/kdkjh dh vkifRr ds Lo;a tkWp vf/kdkjh }kjk Jfed dks mlds lk{; nsus ds volj o xokgksa ls iqu% ftjg djus dh ekWx ,oa vko';d vfHkys[kksa dh ekWx dks Bqdjk;k tkuk euekuk gSA tks fd uSlkfXkZd U;k; ds fl)kUrks ds foijhr gSA tc lsok;kstd dh lk{; yxHkx ,d o"kZ pyh] rks Jfed dks Hkh ,d nks vU; volj fn;k tkuk U;k;ksfpr FkkA 7& tkWp dk;Zokgh fnukad 12-4-85 dks vxyh frfFk fu;r djrs le; bl frfFk dks D;k dk;Zokgh gksxh] Li"V ugh fd;k x;k rFkk fnukad 20-4-85 frfFk fu;r gSA fnukad 20-4-85 dh dksbZ izkslhfMXl fjdkMZ ij miyC/k ugh gS vkSj u gh bldk dksbZ gokyk fjiksVZ esa fn;k x;k gS fnukad 5-5-85 dks tkWp fdlfy, fu;r dh x;h gSA Jfed i{k dk dFku gS fd vpkud mlds i=ksa ij vk/kk fu.kZ; ysdj c;ku nsus dk ekSdk ugh fn;k x;kA ;fn vfHkys[k eWxk, tkrs rks iqu% ftjg esa dfFkr ?kVuk lkfcr gh ugh gksrhA 8& Jfed }kjk fnukad 12-5-85 dks iqu% tkWp esa ekSdk fn, tkus dh izkFkZuk iz0M0&28 }kjk dh x;hA ftldk [k.Mu lsok;kstd dh vksj ls fd, tkus ds laca/k esa i=koyh ij dksbZ lk{; miyC/k ugh gS fd mlds bl izkFkZuk i= dks Lohdkj djrs gq, mls vius cpko dk ekSdk fn;k x;k gksA 9& Jfed ds i= fnukad 5-5-85 iz0M0&29 ftlesa tkWp vf/kdkjh ds i{kikriw.kZ joS;s ds fo#) lsok;kstd dks i= fy[kk x;kA bl izkFkZuk i= dk dksbZ [kUMu djus lk{; i=koyh ij miyC/k ugh gSA 10&iz0M0&14 vfHkfu.kZ; okn la[;k 12@89 esa lsok;kstd i{k us vius fyf[kr dFku esa dgk gS fd tkWp izfdz;k vHkh Hkh yfEcr gS tc tkWp vf/kdkjh fjiksVZ nsxk] rHkh Jfed ds fo#) vkjksiks ds laca/k esa dk;Zokgh dh tk ldrh gSA U;k;kf/kdj.k us vius vfHkfu.kZ; ds vUr esa fuEu fy[kk gS& In the circumstances and for the reasons given above, the management is directed to conclude the enquiry against, the workman concerned within a period of three months from the date of publication of this award. ;g vfHkfu.kZ; blh Jfed ds fuyEcu ds fo#) FkkA vfHkfu.kZ; ls Li"V gS fd izcU/ku }kjk djkbZ tk jgh ?kjsyw tkWp] fu.kZ; dh frfFk 19-4-89 rd vfUre ugh dh x;h Fkh rFkk izcU/ku us dksbZ tkWp vk[;k ds ckjs esa U;k;kf/kdj.k dks voxr ugha djk;k FkkA tkWp vk[;k ij tkWp vf/kdkjh ds gLrk{kj fnukad 15-2-1988 dk gS rFkk iz'kklfud vf/kdkjh dks Hkstus dh frfFk 1-2-1988 vafdr gSA tkWp vk[;k ij dksbZ frfFk vafdr ugh gSA lkFk gh bl mDr vfHkfu.kZ; ds izLrj&10 esa & fd tkWp vf/kdkjh }kjk fjiksVZ ugh nh x;h& vkSj izLrj&13 esa dgk x;k gS fd fuyEcu ls 5 Ok"kZ ds ckn ;kuh 30-5-89 rd dksbZ tkWp fjiksVZ ugh cuk;h x;h FkhA ;fn cukbZ x;h gksrh rks lsok;kstd }kjk vfHkfu.kZ; esa tkWp vk[;k nkf[ky dh x;h gksrhA 11& tkWp eas vkf[kjh dk;Zokgh fnukad 5-5-85 dks dh x;h gS] blds i'pkr dksbZ dk;Zokgh ugha gq;h] ;g iw.kZr;k euekuh gS D;ksfd dk;Zokgh ij Jfed ds fo#) dksbZ ,slh fVIi.kh ugh dh x;h gS fd mlus vius c;ku gsrq iwoZ esa i;kZIr volj izkIr dj fy, gksA bl frfFk dks izLrqrdrkZ vf/kdkjh }kjk Hkh dksbZ ,rjkt ugh fd;k x;kA lh/ks tkWp lfefr }kjk Jfed ds izkFkZuk i= o vkifRr;ksa dks vuns[kk fd;k x;k gSA 12& tkWp dk;Zokgh esa Jfed }kjk vfHkys[k eaxkus dk izkFkZuk i= nsus dk dkj.k vius lk{; esa Li"V fd;k x;k gS tks i=koyh ij gS fd tkWp vf/kdkjh fn lacaf/kr lkf{k;ksa ds ?kVuk okys fnu dk gkftjh fjdkMZ ns[k y srs rks ;g Li"V gks tkrk fd lk{khx.k us tks c;ku fn;k gS og >wBk gS] ftldh iqf"V vfHkys[kh; lk{;ksa ls gks tkrhA 18& mijksDr foospuk ds vk/kkj ij eSa bl fu"d"kZ ij igqWprk gwW fd Jfed ds fo#) lsok;kstd }kjk djk;h x;h tkWp dk;Zokgh mfpr ,oa oS/kkfud ugha gSA rnuqlkj izkjfEHkd okn fcUnq fuLrkfjr fd;k tkrk gSA 19& pwWfd lsok;kstd i{k us vius fyf[kr dFku esa izkFkZuk fd;k gS fd ;fn ?kjsy w tkWp mfpr ,oa oS/kkfud ugh ikbZ tkrh gS rks mUgsa Jfed ds fo#) vkjksiksa dks U;k;ky; ds le{k fl) djus dk volj iznku fd;k tk,A lsok;kstd dh izkFkZuk dks Lohdkj djr gq, mUgsa Jfed ds fo#) vkjksiksa dks fl) djus ds fy, ekSf[kd lk{; gsrq fnukad 23-4-19 fu;r dh tkrh gSA^^ 15. A perusal of aforesaid operative portion of the order of Labour Court dated 29.03.2019, quoted above, also show that on an application of the employer, the Labour Court provided liberty to the employer to adduce evidence on the issue of removal of opposite party No. 1/Devi Shankar Mishra fixing 23.04.2019. 16. It would be appropriate to refer here that the aforesaid order was passed in exercise of power under Section 11-A of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. After the aforesaid order dated 29.03.2019, the matter was heard and finally decided by the Labour Court vide order/award dated 11.02.2020 published on 26.06.2020. 16. It would be appropriate to refer here that the aforesaid order was passed in exercise of power under Section 11-A of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. After the aforesaid order dated 29.03.2019, the matter was heard and finally decided by the Labour Court vide order/award dated 11.02.2020 published on 26.06.2020. The relevant observations of the Labour Court in the impugned order dated 11.02.2020 on reproduction read as under:- ^^izLrqr okn esa Jfed ds fo#) fn0 27-04-84 dh ?kVuk ds vk/kkj ij mls vkjksfir djrs gq, lsok;kstd dh vksj ls ,d ?kjsyw tkap dk;Zokgh lEikfnr dh xbZ] ftlesa tkap vf/kdkjh }kjk nh xbZ tkap vk[;k ds vk/kkj ij Jfed dks fn0 01-03-90 ls lsok ls i`Fkd dj fn;k x;kA ;g tkap dk;Zokgh bl U;k;ky; ds }kjk vius vkns'k fn0 29-03-19 ds }kjk fof/klEer o mfpr u gksuk ikbZ xbZ gSA lsok;kstd i{k dks Jfed ij yxk;s x;s vkjksiksa dks bl U;k;ky; ds le{k fl) djus gsrq i;kZIRk volj fn;s x;sA ;g lk{; Hkkj lsok;kstd i{k ij Fkk fd os Jfed ij yxk;s x;s vkjksiksa ds laca/k esa leqfpr lk{; izLrqr dj Lo;a }kjk dh xbZ tkap dk;Zokgh ,oa rRdze esa fd;s x;s lsok lekiu dks mfpr lkfcr djrsA i;kZIr volj izkIr gksus ds ckotwn muds }kjk vkjksi i= esa Jfed ij yxk;s x;s vkjksiksa dks fl) djus dh n`f"V ls fdlh izdkj dk lk{; U;k;ky; ds le{k izLRkqr ugha fd;k x;kA i=koyh ij miyC/k izn'kZ MCyw0&23 tks fd izfr"Bku esa dk;Zjr lhrkjke uked Jfed }kjk v/;{k] baVd] vkbZ0Vh0vkbZ0] jk;cjsyh dks fy[kk x;k i= fn0 23-04-84 gS] mlls Li"V gS fd izca/ku d vf/kdkjh ds vkpj.k ds fo#) f'kdk;r ;wfu;u ds v/;{k dks nh xbZ gSA izn'kZ MCyw0&24@iz0bZ0&7 tks fd oknh Jfed us v/;{k gksus ds ukrs izfr"Bku ds eq[; dkfeZd izca/kd dks i= fn0 24-04-84 dks Hkstk gS] Li"V gS fd oknh Jfed us lhrkjke ds fo#) dh xbZ dk;Zokgh dks fujLr djus gsrq mYys[k fd;k gSA izn'kZ MCyw&25 tks fd fn0 24-04-84 dks oknh Jfed }kjk ntZ djkbZ xbZ ,QvkbZvkj gS] esa Jh ch0Mh0 ;kno }kjk vU; yksxksa ds lkFk feydj ;wfu;u }kjk Jh vkj0lh0xqIrk] eSVsfj;y eSustj ds fo#) izca/ku dks Hksth xbZ f'kdk;r dks okil fy;s tkus gsrq oknh Jfed dks /kedk;k tkuk mfYyf[kr gSA bu rhuksa vfHkys[kksa ds [k.Mu ds laca/k esa lsok;kstd i{k dh vksj ls dksbZ vfHkdFku ;k lk{; ugha izLrqr fd;k x;k gSA mDr vfHkys[kks a esa of.kZRk izdj.k ?kfVr gksus ds ckn gh Jfed ds fo#) Jh vkj0lh0xqIrk] eSVsfj;y eSustj }kjk dh xbZ f'kdk;r fn0 27-04-84 ds vk/kkj ij izca/ku us Jfed ij ofj"B vf/kdkfj;ksa ds nqO;Zogkj ds vkjksi yxkrs gq, fuyacu vkns'k fn0 28-04-84 fuxZr fd;k vkSj vkjksi i= fn0 30-04-84 ds }kjk Jfed dks vkjksfir djrs gq, mldk mRRkj izkIRk gksus ds ckn mlds fo#) ?kjsyw tkap dk;Zokgh dh xbZ gS] ftlesa mlij yxs vkjksiksa dks fl) ekurs gq, mls lsok ls i`Fkd dj fn;k x;kA Jfed ls lacaf/kr izdj.k ds lHkh i=tkrksa ds voyksdu ls ;g Li"V gS fd Jh vkj0lh0xqIrk }kjk fn;s x;s f'kdk;rh i= esa mfYyf[kr xokgksa esa ls ek= ch0Mh0 ;kno dk c;ku tkap vf/kdkjh ds le{k djk;k x;k gS] tcfd ch0Mh0;kno ds gh fo#) Jfed us iqfyl esa Lo;a dks /kedkus dh fjiksVZ dh FkhA eSVsfj;y eSustj] Jh vkj0lh0 xqIrk ds f'kdk;rh i= esa 'kkfey vU; xokgksa esa fdlh dk lk{; ugha djk;k x;kA blds lkFk gh tkap vf/kdkjh ds le{k vkj0lh0 xqIrk o ch0Mh0 ;kno ds c;kuksa esa fHkUurk gSA tkap dk;Zokgh esa fn0 05-05-85 ds ckn fdlh dk;Zokgh ds lEikfnr fd;s tkus dk vfHkys[k nkf[ky ugha gS vkSj u gh lsok;kstd us vius vfHkdFkuksa esa mDr frfFk ds ckn fdlh dk;Zokgh dk mYys[k fd;k gSA fn0 05-05-85 ds ckn tkap vf/kdkfj;ksa }kjk viuh tkap vk[;k izca/ku dks lkSiha xbZ gS] tks fd vkoj.k i= ds lkFk gS] bl i= ij fMLiSp frfFk iढ+us ;ksX; Li"V ugha gS] fdUrq i= ij tkap vf/kdkjh] th0ih0ik.Ms; ds gLrk{kj ds uhps 25-02-88 vafdr gSA ;g vfHkys[k lsok;kstd dh vksj ls nkf[ky fd;k x;k gSA fn0 05-05-85 ls 25-02-88 ds chp tkap vk[;k ds yfEcr jgus dk dksbZ Li"V dkj.k lsok;kstd us ugha crk;k gSA Jfed us vfHkdFkuksa ,oa lk{; esa tkap vk[;k dh izfr miyC/k u djk;k tkuk dgk gS] lsok;kstd mlds bl dFku dk [k.Mu ugha dj lds gSaA fcuk tkap vk[;k dh izfr fn;s dkj.k crkvks uksfVl tkjh djuk ,oa mlij Jfed ds Li"Vhdj.k ls larq"V u gksuk fn[kkdj Jfed dk lsok lekiu vkns'k fn0 01-03-90 dks tkjh dj fn;k x;kA esjk /;ku ekuuh; mPprj U;k;ky;ksa dh fuEufyf[kr fof/k O;oLFkkvksa dh vksj Hkh vkd`"V gS%& 1- flfoy vihy ua0 & 893@2007] ,y0vkbZ0lh0vkWQ bf.M;k ,oa vU; cuke jkeiky flag fo'ksu 2- flfoy vihy ua0 & 3962@1994] Jherh bfUnjk ckbZ cuke ;wfu;u vkQ bf.M;k ,oa vU; 3- flfoy vihy ua0 & 3169@1981] m0iz0jk0l0ifj0 fuxe cuke equh#n~nhu 4- flfoy fe'kysfu;l fjV fiVh'ku ua0 & 39568@2000] ,l0,u0JhokLro cuke LVsV vkQ ;w0ih0 ,ao vU; mijksDr of.kZr fof/k O;oLFkkvksa esa ek0 mPprj U;k;ky;ksa }kjk izdj.k esa lEikfnr ?kjsyw tkap dk;Zokfg;ksa esa cjrh xbZ vfu;ferrkvksa ds ifj.kkeLo#i vius ikfjr vkns'kksa esa tkap vk[;k ds izfrdwy vkns'k ikfjr fd;s x;s gSaA ek0 U;k;ky;ksa ds izfr LkEeku O;Dr djrk gw¡A orZeku okn esa Jfed ds fo#) lsok;kstd i{k }kjk lEikfnr ?kjsyw tkap dk;Zokgh esa nh xbZ tkap vk[;k ds vk/kkj ij gh mlds lsok lekiu laca/kh vkns'k fn0 01-03-90 ikfjr fd;k x;k gSA bl tkap dk;Zokgh esa Jfed dks cpko dk lEIkw.kZ volj ugha fn;k x;k gSA tkap vf/kdkjh] vuq'kklfud izkf/kdkjh ls fHkUu gSaA blds lkFk gh tkap fjiksVZ dh izfr Jfed dks miyC/k u djk;k tkuk Hkh izekf.kr gSA Jfed ds l'kiFk lk{; esa bl vk'k; dk c;ku gS fd mlus fn0 27-04-84 dks ?kVukLFky ij viuh dfFkr mifLFkfr ds laca/k esa gkftjh iafp ax dkMZ o vkmVxksbax dkMZ nkf[ky djus gsrq ryc fd;k FkkA Jfed us ;g Li"V c;ku fn;k fd fcuk vius foHkkxk/;{k dh vuqefr ds iz'kklfud Hkou tkus ij mlds fo#) dk;Zokgh dh tkrhA iafpax dkMZ ls mlds dk;ZLFky ij mldh gkftjh Li"V gks tkrhA lsok;kstd us fn0 27-04-84 dks Jfed ds vius dk;ZLFky ls fcuk vuqefr tkus ds fdlh vkjksi dk vfHkdFku ;k lk{; izLrqr ugha fd;k gSA blds lkFk gh Jfed us lacaf/kr vf/kdkjh }kjk esfMdy u djk;k tkuk vkSj vius fo#) ,Q-vkbZ-vkj- u djk;k tkuk Hkh l'kiFk lk{; esa dgk gSA lsok;kstd Jfed ds bl c;ku dk Hkh dksbZ [k.Mu izLrqr ugha dj lds gSa] tcfd tkap dk;Zokgh ds nkf[ky i=tkrksa ls ;g Li"V gS fd Jfed ij dbZ vU; yksxksa ds lkFk vkj0lh0xqIrk ls ekjihV djus ds Hkh vkjksi yxk;s x;s gSaA tkap dk;Zokgh esa vkj0lh0 xqIrk us Jfed ds vykok mlds lkFk vk, vU; yksxksa dks u igpkuuk Hkh dgk gSA mPpkf/kdkjh ls ekjihV ds ckotwn iqfyl dks lwfpr u fd;k tkuk bl ?kVuk ds ?kfVr gksus ij vfo'okl iSnk djrk gSA ;g izdj.k Jfed ds fo#) lqfu;ksftr rjhds ls fd;k x;k "kM;a= izrhr gksrk gS] tks fd izn'kZ MCyw0&23] 24 ds vk/kkj ij Jfed }kjk izca/ku ds vf/kdkjh ds fo#) dh f'kdk;r ds QyLo#i lsok;kstdksa dh ukjktxh ls mRiUu gqvk gSA vr% eSa bl vfHker dk gw¡ fd orZeku okn esa lsok;kstd i{k }kjk dh xbZ ?kjsyw tkap dk;Zokgh] tks fof/klEer ढ+x ls lEikfnr ugha dh xbZ] esa tkap vf/kdkjh }kjk nh xbZ tkap vk[;k ds vk/kkj ij Jfed dks fn0 01-03-1990 ls lsok ls i`Fkd fd;k tkuk vuqfpr ,oa voS/kkfud gSA Jfed lsok lekiu frfFk ls vlsEcyh vkijsVj ds in ij lsok esa cgky fd;s tkus gsrq ik= gS] fdUrq orZeku esa Jfed nsoh'kadj feJ vf/ko"kZrk vk;q iw.kZ dj pqdk gS] vr% mls lsok esa iquLFkkZfir fd;k tkuk laHko ugha gSA Jfed dks fn0 01-03-90 ls mldh lsokfuo`fRr frfFk rd dh vof/k esa ofj"Brk ,oa lsok dh rkjrE;rk ds lkFk leLr lsok fgrykHk iznku fd;k tkrk gSA tgk¡ rd mDr vof/k esa cdk;k cSdostst dk iz'u gS] rks ;g fopkj.kh; rF; gS fd Jfed dks fn0 28-04-84 ls lsok;kstdksa }kjk nqHkkZoukiwoZd ,d izdj.k esa fuyafcr djus ds ckn fn0 01-03-90 dks mldk lsok lekiu dj fn;k x;kA bl lsok lekiu ds fo#) ;ksftr izLrqr okn dh iSjoh djus esa gh mlds thou dk og fgLlk yx x;k] ftlesa og vius o vius ifjokj dh izxfr ds fy, dk;Z djrkA bl ?kVukdze ls u flQZ Jfed dk thou izfrdwy #i ls izHkkfor gqvk gS] cfYd mlds iwjs ifjokj ij Hkh bldk nq"izHkko iM+k gksxkA vr% vknsf'kr fd;k tkrk gS fd Jfed lsok lekiu frfFk 01-03-1990 ls viuh lsokfuo`fRRk frfFk rd dh vof/k ds e/; vius /kkfjr jgus okys in ds vuq#i osru dk 60 izfr'kr cSdostst izkIr djsxkA okn O;; ds #Ik esa #0 15]000@& lsok;kstd i{k] Jfed dks vnk djsaA^^ 17. While assailing the orders impugned, Sri Vikas Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner stated that Labour Court exceeded its jurisdiction in entering into the facts of the case. He stated that as per settled principle, the Labour Court or any other Court while dealing with the matters related to disciplinary enquiry/domestic enquiry cannot act as an Appellate Authority and Labour Court or any other Court would consider only the procedure adopted by the Enquiry Officer and Disciplinary Authority. In the instant case, proper opportunity of hearing was provided to opposite party No. 1/Devi Shankar Mishra and thereafter the impugned order of removal was passed, as such, there is no illegality or irregularity in conducting the enquiry. Thus, interference by the Labour Court is unjustified. 18. It is also stated that opposite party No. 1/Devi Shankar Mishra, who is a labour leader, committed gross misconduct by abusing and assaulting the Manager of the petitioner namely Sri R.C. Gupta on account of transfer of some employees and his conduct is unbecoming as an employee. 19. He also stated that the opposite party No. 1/Devi Shankar Mishra through his representative duly cross examined the victim R.C. Gupta, who was abused and beaten by the opposite party No. 1/Devi Shankar Mishra, charged official, and in the cross examination, as many as about 53 questions were put to Sri R.C.Gupta and however, nothing could be elicited from this witness from which it can be deduced that no incident took place on the date indicated in the complaint as also in the charge-sheet. 20. He also stated that during enquiry, the opposite party No. 1-Devi Shankar Mishra through his representative denied the cross-examination of witnesses on account of some documents and if the statement of these witnesses be ignored, even then the punishment order is justified on the basis of statement of victim Sri R.C. Gupta, who supported the charges levelled against the opposite party No. 1. The prayer is to allow the writ petition and interfere in the matter. 21. Further submitted that a perusal of the statements of these witnesses would also show that they have not seen opposite party No.1-Devi Shankar Mishra in the room. Presence of these witnesses are doubtful even at the place where they said that they were present. The prayer is to allow the writ petition and interfere in the matter. 21. Further submitted that a perusal of the statements of these witnesses would also show that they have not seen opposite party No.1-Devi Shankar Mishra in the room. Presence of these witnesses are doubtful even at the place where they said that they were present. To substantiate this aspect of the case that other witnesses were not present even nearby place of incident, the documents were demanded. However, these documents were not provided by the Management and for this reason, the cross-examination was not carried out form the side of the opposite party No.1-Devi Shankar Mishra. In this manner proceedings against the opposite party No.1-Devi Shankar Mishra are against the principles of natural justice. As such, no interference is required in the instant case by this Court. 22. During disciplinary proceedings vide letter dated/representation dated 03.03.1985 and thereafter, vide letter dated 21.03.1985 certain documents were demanded by the opposite party No.1-Devi Shankar Mishra and the Disciplinary Committee without considering the relevancy of the documents though, the same were required, passed the order dated 05.05.1985. As per this order, the enquiry committee was of the view that the documents so demanded would be provided if the same are required in the matter. The documents demanded were specifically indicated in the letter dated 21.03.1985. In this regard, reliance has been placed on SCA-12, annexed with the present petition, as per which, the following documents were required:- "(1) Attendance register of Store & Supply Department for the month of May & June 1984. (2) Joining report submitted in Store & Supply Department by Sri R.N. Diwvedi 8317 & Sri Sita Ram 3096. (3) Receipt & disposal register of Purchase Department(s) for the month of April to June, 1984. (4) Attendance record on Form 12 maintained in CTO for the month of April to June, 84 showing attendance of Sri R.N.Diwvedi Sl. No. 3377 & their attendance card. In addition to above, please supply us the copy of affidavits of Sri P.N.Mishra & Rhayan Singh, regarding their witness." 23. (4) Attendance record on Form 12 maintained in CTO for the month of April to June, 84 showing attendance of Sri R.N.Diwvedi Sl. No. 3377 & their attendance card. In addition to above, please supply us the copy of affidavits of Sri P.N.Mishra & Rhayan Singh, regarding their witness." 23. On the relevancy of these documents, it is stated by Sri Tripathi that the case of the management/petitioner against the opposite party No.1-Devi Shankar Mishra was to the effect that the opposite party No.1-Devi Shankar Mishra entered into the office/chamber of Sri R.C.Gupta alongwith some labourers and in the light of the same, the documents so demanded were relevant as from these documents it can be ascertained/deciphered that actually the opposite party No. 1/Devi Shankar Mishra and other persons were entered into the Administrative Block in which without permission no labour can enter even the labour leader. From these documents, it can also be ascertained/deciphered that in fact no such incidents took place in the office/chamber of Sri R.C.Gupta. 24. He further submitted that on 05.05.1985, the disciplinary proceedings were closed on the presumption that the respondent does not want to say anything in his defense, though, a bare perusal of the proceedings of the enquiry committee held on 05.05.1985 would show that the cross-examination of witness was denied only on account of non providing of relevant documents demanded vide letter/representation dated 03.03.1985 and 21.03.1985. From the proceedings drawn by the enquiry committee on 05.05.1985, it further transpires that cross-examination of Sri R.C.Gupta in relation to which, the allegations in the chargesheet were levelled against the opposite party No.1-Devi Shankar Mishra, was also demanded, however, this opportunity was not provided. 25. Thereafter, the enquiry report was prepared and submitted before the Disciplinary Authority with huge delay vide letter dated 15.02.1988 signed on 25.02.1988 and thereafter, the order of removal from service was passed after huge delay on 01.03.1990, which is a non-speaking order. While passing the order of removal, the Disciplinary Authority failed to consider the statements of other witnesses and the reply to the charge sheet submitted by the opposite party No. 1/Devi Shankar Mishra. 26. While passing the order of removal, the Disciplinary Authority failed to consider the statements of other witnesses and the reply to the charge sheet submitted by the opposite party No. 1/Devi Shankar Mishra. 26. It is also stated that even the enquiry report is not as per settled principle, as per which, the reply to the charge-sheet submitted by the respondent as also the statements of other witnesses ought to have been considered and specific reasons ought to have been recorded on each charge. Thus, for the reasons aforesaid, the impugned orders of the Labour court are not liable to be interfered with by this Court. 27. Admittedly, the enquiry was conducted against the labour leader. Thus, it can also be gathered from the facts of the case that the opposite party No. 1/Devi Shankar Mishra raised the issue of transfer orders before Sri R.C. Gupta and just to teach the lesson, the management framed the story through Sri R.C. Gupta and based upon the same, the opposite party No. 1/Devi Shankar Mishra was suspended, charge-sheeted and thereafter removed from service. 28. A perusal of the record shows that no management witness except Sri R.C. Gupta (complainant) was present on the place of alleged incident and to corroborate the statement of Sri R.C.Gupta, the statement(s) of some of labours, who were present there with opposite party No. 1/Devi Shankar Mishra, were required. However, no labour was produced by the management so as to prove the said incident. As such, based upon the sole testimony of Sri R.C.Gupta, the order of punishment is unsustainable. Prayer is to dismiss the petition. 29. Considered the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 30. Before proceeding to consider the respective submissions of the learned counsel for the parties in the light of the pleadings and documents on record, this Court considered it appropriate to refer one aspect of the case i.e. how a "Regular Enquiry" should be conducted. 31. On the aforesaid issue both the counsels for the parties placed before this Court several judgments, however, in view of settled proposition regarding holding of "Regular Enquiry" this Court is not referring to all the judgments placed before this Court by the learned counsel for the parties. 31. On the aforesaid issue both the counsels for the parties placed before this Court several judgments, however, in view of settled proposition regarding holding of "Regular Enquiry" this Court is not referring to all the judgments placed before this Court by the learned counsel for the parties. This Court in the judgment dated 28.11.2018 passed in Writ Petition No. 34093 (S/B) of 2018 (State of U.P. v. Deepak Kumar), regarding holding "Regular Enquiry" observed as under:- "It is settled by the catena of judgments that it is the duty of Enquiry Officer to hold ''Regular Enquiry'. Regular enquiry means that after reply to the chargesheet the Enquiry Officer must record oral evidence with an opportunity to the delinquent employee to cross-examine the witnesses and thereafter opportunity should be given to the delinquent employee to adduce his evidence in defence. The opportunity of personal hearing should also be given/awarded to the delinquent employee. Even if the charged employee does not participate/co-operate in the enquiry, it shall be incumbent upon the Enquiry Officer to proceed ex-parte by recording oral evidence. For regular enquiry, it is incumbent upon the Enquiry Officer to fix date, time and place for examination and cross-examination of witnesses for the purposes of proving of charges and documents, relied upon and opportunity to delinquent employee should also be given to produce his witness by fixing date, time and place. After completion of enquiry the Enquiry Officer is required to submit its report, stating therein all the relevant facts, evidence and statement of findings on each charge and reasons thereof, and thereafter, prior to imposing any punishment, the copy of the report should be provided to charged officer for the purposes of submission of his reply on the same. The punishment order should be reasoned and speaking and must be passed after considering entire material on record. (vide: Jagdish Prasad Vs. State of U.P. 1990 (8) LCD 486; Avatar Singh Vs. State of U.P. 1998 (16) LCD 199; Town Area Committee, Jalalabad Vs. Jagdish Prasad 1979 Vol. I SCC 60; Managing Director, U.P. Welfare Housing Corporation Vs. Vijay Narain Bajpai 1980 Vol. 3 SCC 459; State of U.P. Vs. Shatrughan Lal 1998 (6) SCC 651 ; Chandrama Tewari Vs. Union of India and others AIR 1998 SC 117; Anil Kumar Vs. Presiding Officer and others AIR 1985 SC 1121 ; Radhey Kant Khare Vs. I SCC 60; Managing Director, U.P. Welfare Housing Corporation Vs. Vijay Narain Bajpai 1980 Vol. 3 SCC 459; State of U.P. Vs. Shatrughan Lal 1998 (6) SCC 651 ; Chandrama Tewari Vs. Union of India and others AIR 1998 SC 117; Anil Kumar Vs. Presiding Officer and others AIR 1985 SC 1121 ; Radhey Kant Khare Vs. U.P. Co-operative Sugar Factories 2003 (21) LCD 610; Roop Singh Negi Vs. Punjab National Bank and others (2009) 2 SCC 570 ; M.M. Siddiqui Vs. State of U.P. and others 2015 (33) LCD 836; Moti Ram Vs. State of U.P. and others 2013 (31) LCD 1319 ; Kaptan Singh Vs. State of U.P. and others 2014 (4) ALJ 440." 32. From the aforesaid observations, it is apparent that the proper opportunity should be provided to the delinquent/charged official, meaning thereby the relevant documents should be provided and if the same are not necessary then the enquiry officer or enquiry committee, as the case may be, should pass reasoned and speaking order indicating therein as to why the documents are not required for the purposes of disciplinary proceedings. Further, the enquiry officer is required to consider all aspects of the case to record specific finding on each charge. The disciplinary Authority is also under obligation to record the reasons for coming to the conclusion and reason should be recorded after considering the entire material available on record. 33. From the proceedings drawn by the enquiry committee on 05.05.1985, quoted above, on which date, the enquiry committee closed the disciplinary proceedings against the opposite party No. 1/Devi Shankar Mishra and the order dated 05.05.1985, which was passed on the applications including the application dated 21.03.1985 whereby certain documents were demanded, it is apparent that without recording reasons in relation to the documents so demanded, the documents were not provided. 34. It further reflects from the proceeding drawn by the enquiry committee on 05.05.1985, quoted above, that on presumption that charged official does not want to say anything in his defense, the disciplinary proceedings were closed, though, as per settled principle, the enquiry officer or the enquiry committee, as the case may be, after recording the evidence of witnesses produced by the Management was under obligation to fix the date, time and place for the purposes of adducing the evidence by the charged official in his defense. In this case, despite demand of fixing next date, as appears from proceeding dated 05.05.1985, no further date was fixed for the purposes of providing an opportunity to the charged official to adduce his evidence in defence by the enquiry committee. 35. The enquiry report submitted by the enquiry committee, quoted hereinabove, shows that the enquiry committee failed to consider the reply submitted by the opposite party No. 1/Devi Shankar Mishra on 14.05.1984 in response to the charge sheet dated 30.04.1984. 36. It further transpires that the sheet anchor of the enquiry report is the statement of Sri R.C.Gupta in holding the opposite party No. 1/Devi Shankar Mishra guilty of charges mentioned in the charge sheet, though, in the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the view that to corroborate the statement of Sri R.C.Gupta the management ought to have produced at least one workman out of workmen, who as per management were present in the office/chamber of Sri R.C.Gupta with the petitioner on the date of alleged incident. 37. The enquiry report says that no evidence could be produced by the charge sheeted employee contrary to the belief that the episode created by the employees, was due to transfer order. While observing the same the enquiry committee itself failed to take note of the fact that for the purposes of adducing the evidence by the charged official/ opposite party No. 1/Devi Shankar Mishra, no date, time and place was fixed despite being asked on 05.05.1985. The enquiry committee also failed to take note of the fact that the charged official/ opposite party No. 1/Devi Shankar Mishra demanded further cross-examination of Sri R.C.Gupta and Sri B.D.Yadav, however, no order by the enquiry committee was passed in regard to the same. 38. Further, the order of removal dated 01.03.1990, which was passed after huge delay from the date of submission of enquiry report, is also non-speaking. It would be apt to refer that the Hon'ble Apex Court in Kranti Associates Private Limited & Another vs. Masood Ahmad Khan & Others; reported in (2010) 9 SCC 496 in para 23 observed as under:- "23. It would be apt to refer that the Hon'ble Apex Court in Kranti Associates Private Limited & Another vs. Masood Ahmad Khan & Others; reported in (2010) 9 SCC 496 in para 23 observed as under:- "23. In Union of India v. Mohan Lal Capoor [ (1973) 2 SCC 836 : 1974 SCC (L&S) 5 : AIR 1974 SC 87 ] this Court while dealing with the question of selection under the Indian Administrative Service/Indian Police Service (Appointment by Promotion) Regulations held that the expression “reasons for the proposed supersession” should not be mere rubber-stamp reasons. Such reasons must disclose how mind was applied to the subject-matter for a decision regardless of the fact whether such a decision is purely administrative or quasi-judicial. This Court held that the reasons in such context would mean the link between materials which are considered and the conclusions which are reached. Reasons must reveal a rational nexus between the two (see SCC pp. 853-54, paras 27-28 : AIR pp. 97-98, paras 27-28)." 39. In nutshell, for the reasons aforesaid, this Court is of the view that proper opportunity was not provided to the opposite party No. 1/Devi Shankar Mishra by the Disciplinary Committee and being so the enquiry report is vitiated on account of non following of principles of natural justice and the order of removal dated 01.03.1990 based upon the enquiry report also hit by maxim "Sublato Fundamento Cadit Opus" (a foundation being removed, the superstructure falls). 40. In view of above, the removal/punishment order dated 01.03.1990 being based upon the enquiry report, which is vitiated under the law and being non-speaking is unsustainable in law. 41. Accordingly, for the reasons aforesaid, this Court is of the view that Labour Court has not committed any error in holding that enquiry is vitiated on account of non following the principles of natural justice and being so this Court is not inclined to interfere in the impugned order/award dated 11.02.2020 published on 26.06.2020 and the order dated 29.03.2019 so far as it relate to interfering in the order of removal dated 01.03.1990. 42. 42. The Labour Court after considering the fact that the opposite party No. 1/Devi Shankar Mishra has already attained the age of superannuation and after interfering/setting aside the order of removal dated 01.03.1990 directed the Management/petitioner to provide 60% of back wages to the opposite party No. 1/Devi Shankar Mishra from the date of impugned order of removal dated 01.03.1990 till the date of superannuation and also awarded the cost of Rs. 15,000/-. 43. In regard to back wages provided in the award dated 11.02.2020 passed by the Labour Court, this Court is of the view that interference is required in the matter. It is in view of the observations made by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the judgment passed in the case of Allahabad Bank and Others vs. Avtar Bhushan Bhartiya; reported in 2022 SCC OnLine SC 499. 44. Considering the entire facts of the case including the date of conclusion of enquiry i.e. 05.05.1985, date of submission of enquiry report i.e. 25.02.1988 and date of remand order i.e. 01.03.1990 particularly the period for which the opposite party No. 1/Devi Shankar Mishra remained out of job and the observations made in the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court dated 22.04.2022 passed in the case of Avtar Bhushan Bhartiya (Supra), this Court is of the view that justice would suffice if back wages are granted to the extent of 50% to the opposite party No. 1/Devi Shankar Mishra. Accordingly, this Court provides that petitioner shall pay 50% of back wages from the date of order of removal dated 01.03.1990 till the date of superannuation to the opposite party No. 1/Devi Shankar Mishra within four months from today along with costs of Rs. 15,000/-, awarded by the Labour Court. 45. The writ petition is partly allowed in aforesaid terms.