The judgment emphasized the principles of natural justice, burden of proof, and the mandatory nature of publication of awards under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.

This writ petition, filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, challenges awards passed by the Labour Court at Kolhapur on 13th February, 2014 (Part I Award) and 15th May, 2014 (Final Award). The awards are passed on a reference made under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, in pursuance of a demand notice issued by the first respondent workman, complaining of illegal termination from the services of the petitioner.

2. The respondent workman was employed initially with Sangli Bank (now merged with the petitioners) at its branch in Tasgaon District, Sangli, and was working as an Agricultural Assistant. (Sangli Bank was merged with the petitioner under a scheme of amalgamation w.e.f. 19th April, 2007). The Petitioner's case is that on 5th December, 2002, a staff member at the branch, one Dilip Hingmire, arranged a party, where liqour and food were served. This party was attended by six colleagues of Hingmire. After this party, except Hingmire and one peon all others left for their respective residences. Thereafter, Hingmire and the Peon, one B. N. Khokade, came at Hotel 'Pranav Garden' where the first respondent workman was present. On the next day, the first respondent handed over to the bank keys which Hingmire was supposed to have with him. Hingmire was, thereafter, not traceable for 2 to 3 days, after which his dead body was found in a well at village Kawathe Ekand, near about 6 to 7 kilometers from Tasgaon. Thereafter, on 23rd December, 2002 the first Respondent was arrested by police in connection with Hingmire's death. A news item to that effect was flashed near about in all Marathi newspapers circulating within Sangli District.

3. Taking note of this fact, which according to the petitioner tarnished its image and was prejudicial to its interest, the petitioner suspended Khokade and the first respondent on 7th February, 2003. A charge sheet was issued against the respondent workman on 11th February, 2003, in accordance with the bipartite settlement between the petitioner and its employees, alleging two misconducts, namely, (i) acting prejudicially to the interest of bank, and (ii) tarnishing / damaging the image of the bank in the eyes of public. The charge sheet was replied by the respondent workman, denying the fact that he was in any way involved with the death of Hingmire. An enquiry was, thereupon, initiated against the respondent workman. The enquiry officer submitted his report on 7th August, 2003, holding the respondent guilty of the misconduct complained of. The petitioner thereupon issued a notice seeking an explanation from the respondent, which was furnished by the respondent, denying the findings recorded by the enquiry officer. A show cause notice was thereafter issued by the petitioner to the respondent, proposing his dismissal from its services. By its order dated 30th October, 2003, the petitioner terminated the services of the respondent. A departmental appeal preferred by the respondent against the order of termination was dismissed by the Appellate Authority by its order dated 23rd September, 2004. In course of time, the Criminal Prosecution initiated by the State in respect of the death of Late Hingmire, resulted into acquittal of the respondent workman from the charge of murder. The Respondent, thereafter, issued a demand notice on 30th October, 2015 requiring the petitioner to reinstate him, which came to be rejected. The rejection was followed by a conciliation proceeding and on its failure, the present dispute was referred by the appropriate government to the Labour Court, under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.

4. The Labour Court held in its impugned PartI Award that the enquiry conducted against the workman was against the principles of natural justice and the award was perverse. The petitioner was granted liberty to justify its action of dismissal before the Court. During further proceedings of the reference, despite having the opportunity to justify its action by le