JUDGMENT : The workman, who has sought a reference by invoking the provisions contained under Section 4-K of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, it was as against the dismissal of his services on 3rd February, 1993. He had met with the sad demise on 31st May, 2013, and it is now that almost after more than 2274 days, a Substitution Application, has been filed on 20th November, 2019, which is rather a mockery of the judicial proceedings, that the said Substitution Application is now being considered after a lapse of yet another four years in 2023. 2. But, in order to enable the Court to decide the matter itself on merits, coupled with the fact, that since the heirs of deceased respondent workman are already represented by the counsel, the Delay Condonation Application, which has been filed along with the Substitution Application, would stand allowed, and the delay, which has chanced in filing the Substitution Application, would stand condoned. 3. Consequently, the Substitution Application, too, would stand allowed, and the heirs as described in para 3 are directed to be brought on record. 4. The counsel for the petitioner would carry out the necessary amendment in the cause title of the Writ Petition within three days. 5. Looking to the age of litigation, the parties have agreed to address the Writ Petition on its own merit. 6. Heard learned counsel for the parties, including the counsel representing their heirs. 7. A brief narration of facts, which requires consideration are, that by virtue of the Government Order 5512-16/K.R.-C.P.32/1994 dated 19th August, 1996, the State while exercising the powers under Section 4-K of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, had made reference, for deciding the question of reference as against the action of the respondents of dispensing the services of the deceased workman on 3rd February, 1993. 8. The issue which came up for consideration was, as to whether, prior to the passing of the order of dispensing the services of the deceased workman, the employer has resorted to the prescribed procedure of dispensation of services, by adhering to the principle of natural justice by conducting an appropriate domestic inquiry, in order to enable the workman to establish his innocence with regard to the set of allegations levelled against him. 9. 9. In fact, this was the second phase of litigation, because earlier an award was rendered on 23rd January, 2004, which was ultimately decided by this Court by a judgment of 22nd July, 2008, with the following directions :- “Domestic enquiry against the workman/petitioner was held ex parte. Industrial Tribunal did not frame the point for determination in this regard as to “whether the domestic enquiry held against the workman was proper and fair” although this plea was taken by the petitioner before the Tribunal. Therefore, impugned award dated 23-1-2004 is set aside. The matter is remanded to the Industrial Tribunal to decide the dispute afresh after framing the aforesaid issue.” 10. Pursuant to the direction issued by this Court, the learned Labour Court, had revived back the proceedings, and formulated the questions to be decided with regard to the action of the dismissal taken against the workman by the employer / petitioner, herein, and primarily, the issue, which would be of concern, is with respect to the question Nos. 3 and 4, as formulated by the Labour Court, as extracted hereunder:- 4 ^^1-laHkkZns'kkuqlkjA 2- D;k lanHkkZns'k fof/k dh n`f"V ls nks"ki.kZ gS tSlk lsok;kstd dk dFku gS \ 3- D;k Jfed dks lsok eqDr djus ds vkns'k fnukad 3&2&1993 ls iwoZ dksbZ lquokbZ dk volj ugha fn;k x;k \ ;fn gkW rks bldk izHkko \ 4- D;k Jfed ds fo:} dh xbZ /kjsyw tkWp mfpr ,oa oS/kkfud gS\^^ 11. The learned Labour Court, while deciding the aforesaid questions, had observed that the stand taken by the workman, being that the workman has not availed an opportunity of cross examination, despite the same having been provided by the inquiry officer conducting the domestic inquiry, and hence, there was an apparent lack of diligence on the part of the workman, it was a case of the petitioner, that it cannot be said that the action taken of dispensation of services by the petitioner employer was contrary to the principles of natural justice. 12. But, when the matter was re-considered, and particularly, in the light of the spirit of the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court as reported in [2010 (92) AIC 718, Krishna Murari Singh Vs. State of Jharkhand and others, the principle laid down therein had provided that any disciplinary proceeding, which is concluded by the employer without providing any opportunity of cross examination of witnesses, would be vitiated. State of Jharkhand and others, the principle laid down therein had provided that any disciplinary proceeding, which is concluded by the employer without providing any opportunity of cross examination of witnesses, would be vitiated. In fact, the said ratio of making the opportunity of cross examination to be mandatory, has also been settled by the Hon’ble Apex Court in catena of judgments. 13. Lack of providing of an opportunity of cross examination of the witnesses, which are going to form the basis of passing the impugned order, would vitiate the entire domestic inquiry itself. 14. In the question thus, formulated by the learned Labour Court, after the initial remand, the Labour Court has observed, that if the statement of the witnesses, i.e. the workman, is taken into consideration, he has made a statement, that when he was called upon to participate in the departmental inquiry, he went there and he was provided with the chargesheet and the copy of charges which were framed against him, but no opportunity of cross examination of the witnesses was provided to him. Hence, it was contended before the learned Labour Court, that the proceedings of dispensation of services after conclusion of the domestic inquiry was in vitiation to the principle of natural justice. 15. The answer to the aforesaid question has been given by the learned Labour Court, while considering the exhibit E-1, as it was submitted by the Inquiry Officer, wherein, an excerpt of the same has been extracted, which mentions that a specific question was posed by the Inquiry Officer, as to whether the delinquent employee intends to avail an opportunity of cross examination and a personal hearing too or not. In the reply submitted by the workman on 17th June, 1992, the workman has submitted, that he would like to avail an opportunity of cross examination, but the same was still not provided despite the aforesaid principles as referred to hereinabove, that providing of an opportunity of cross examination of the witnesses to the delinquent employee, who is facing the departmental inquiry, would be one of the basic ingredients, which is required to be adhered to before taking any punitive action against the workman and that too of a serious nature of punishment calling for dispensation of services. 16. 16. Based upon the aforesaid principle of the Hon’ble Apex Court, as referred to in the matter of Krishna Murari Singh (Supra), the Labour Court has observed, that an appropriate disciplinary proceeding was not concluded by the employer, nor the evidences which were adduced before the Inquiry Officer, and, also that no opportunity of cross examination was provided, nor any effective opportunity was given to the workman to establish his innocence with regard to the set of charges framed against him. 17. Consequently, the Labour Court has directed, that the dispensation of the services of the late workman /respondent No.2, was in apparent violation of principles of natural justice, and the conduct of the departmental inquiry was vitiated in the eyes of law, since not having been provided with an effective opportunity of cross examination of the witnesses, which has been taken as to be the foundation for the passing the impugned order of termination on 3rd February, 1993. 18. Consequently, the Labour Court vide its award dated 30th July, 2011, had directed the reinstatement along with the backwages. 19. The Writ Petition was preferred by the employer on 24th January, 2012. When the matter was initially entertained by this Court, the Court granted time to the respondents to file the counter affidavit. But, however, later on, the Coordinate Bench, vide an interim order dated 17th April, 2012, directed the employer to remit 50% of the awarded amount to the workman, and the same is said to have been withdrawn as would be apparent from yet another order passed by the Coordinate Bench on 28th December, 2012. 20. Owing to the prolonged pendency of the litigation, the workman, who was otherwise supposed to be reinstated, has met with the sad demise on 31st May, 2013. Hence, as a matter of fact, as of now, the aspect pertaining to his reinstatement does not come into question. But still, the issue which will remain to be decided is pertaining to the entitlement of the balance 50% of the backwages, which otherwise fall to be within the definition of the property, which the heirs of the deceased employee would be entitled to receive under law since falling within the purview of definition of property. 21. But still, the issue which will remain to be decided is pertaining to the entitlement of the balance 50% of the backwages, which otherwise fall to be within the definition of the property, which the heirs of the deceased employee would be entitled to receive under law since falling within the purview of definition of property. 21. To that limited extent about the entitlement of the receipt of the balance 50% of the amount, that would be ensured to be remitted to the heirs, who has been substituted and brought on record by today’s order, as passed on the Substitution Application. 22. Having observed above, that since the entire disciplinary proceeding conducted as against the employee was vitiated due to non-providing of an effective opportunity of cross examination of the witnesses, the impugned order cannot be said to be vitiated in the eyes of law. The same is sustained. The Writ Petition would stand dismissed with regard to the conclusion as drawn above, limiting the rights of the heirs to receive the balance 50% of the backwages as awarded by the learned Labour Court, which would be ensured to be paid within two months from today.