Heard Shri M.C. Pant, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri Pankaj Purohit, the learned counsel for the respondent No. 2.

2. The petitioner is the workman and has challenged the validity and legality of the award of the Labour Court by which the order of termination of his services was upheld by the Labour Court. The brief facts leading to the filing of the writ petition is, that the petitioner was appointed as the Secretary in the Co-operative Society of opposite party No. 2 w.e.f. 3rd February, 1996. On account of serious charges of mis-appropriation of the funds of the Co-operative Society, the petitioner was chargesheeted by an order dated 18.08.1998. An inquiry was held and, thereafter, the petitioner’s services was terminated by an order dated 10th September, 1998. The petitioner, being aggrieved by the said order, raised an industrial dispute which was eventually referred for adjudication before the Labour Court. The terms of the reference order was :-

“Whether the employers were justified in terminating the services of the petitioner w.e.f. 10th September, 1998? If not, to what relief was the workman entitled to?

3. Before the Labour Court, parties filed their written statement and rejoinder affidavits and also led evidence. A preliminary issue was framed with regard to the validity and legality of the domestic inquiry proceedings. The Labour Court, by an order dated 19.04.2000 held that the principle of natural justice was not followed by the employers while conducting the inquiry proceedings and, consequently, held that the inquiry proceedings stood vitiated for violation of the principles of natural justice. The Labour Court by the said order further granted liberty to the employers to adduce additional evidence in order to prove the charges levelled against the workman. The Labour Court by the said order also made an interim award directing the employer to pay wages to the workman during the pendency of the proceedings.

4. In transpires that the employers being aggrieved by the order of the Labour Court dated 19th April, 2000 filed writ petition No. 24378 of 2000 before the Allahabad High Court and, upon its transfer to this Court, it was re-numbered as Writ Petition No. 2070 of 2001 (M/S). At the time when the said writ petition was entertained, an interim order dated 22.05.2000 was passed staying the operation of the order dated 19.04.2000. The said writ petition has been dismissed for want of prosecution by an order dated 21st March, 2007. Notwithstanding the passing of the interim order by the writ court, it transpires that the employers were allowed to lead evidence. The Labour Court recorded the evidence of various witnesses adduced by the employers as well as by the petitioner and, thereafter, the matter was heard on merit and the Labour Court gave an award holding that some of the charges levelled against the petitioner was found to be correct and were proved by the employers. The Labour Court, after considering the gravity of the charges, found that the employers had lost confidence in the workman and, therefore, held that the petitioner was not entitled to any relief. The petitioner, being aggrieved by the said award, has consequently, filed the present writ petition.

5. Shri M.C. Pant, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that once the Labour Court found that the domestic inquiry was vitiated on account of the principles of natural justice, the Labour Court could not allow the employers to adduce additional evidence to prove the charge, since no such liberty or request was made by the employers at any stage of the proceedings. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the employers had not raised any plea either in its written statement or in the rejoinder affidavit or in any other miscellaneous application praying that the employers may be allowed to lead additional evidence to prove the charges against the workman in the event, the Labour Court found that the