IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH

AT JABALPUR

BEFORE

HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK JAIN

th

ON THE 13 OF JANUARY, 2026 MISC. PETITION No. 7383 of 2025

SATIN FINSERV LTD. TARAASHANA FINANCIAL SERVICES AND

OTHERS

Versus

SUMIT KUMAR YADAV

Appearance:

Shri Uttam Maheshwari - Advocate for the petitioners. Shri Aditya Veer Singh - Advocate for the respondents.

ORDER basis of various judgments passed by this Court in exercise of writ jurisdiction under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India, whereas the jurisdiction conferred on the Labour Court is of different nature and the Labour Court is required to decide the industrial dispute as such. It is argued by learned counsel for the petitioner-employer that in the event the domestic enquiry is defective or no domestic enquiry is conducted against the workmen prior to termination of his services, then the Labour Court cannot set aside the order simpliciter on that ground and it is obligatory for the Labour Court to decide the industrial dispute once and for all and therefore, it is settled in law that the Labour Court has to grant opportunity to the employer to adduce evidence as to the alleged misconduct of the workman before the Labour Court in case the domestic enquiry is either not held or if held, is found to be defective.

The present position has been filed by the Management Employer

challenging the award dated 31.01.2025 passed by the Labour Court, Jabalpur, which was pronounced on 10.03.2025 after obtaining consent of the appropriate Government. Further challenge is made to the order dated 11.12.2025, whereby the Labour Court has rejected application for review

against the said order.

2. Counsel for the petitioner while pressing the petition has criticized

the impugned award on the singular ground that while passing the award dated 31.01.2025 the Labour Court has set aside the termination of services of the respondent workman on the ground that the said termination was not preceded by any departmental or domestic enquiry and therefore, on account of failure of principles of natural justice, the termination order has been set aside. It is also argued that the Labour Court has decided the case on the

3 . Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent workmen has contended that in the present case since opportunity to lead evidence was given by the Labour Court to the parties, therefore, it cannot be argued that the petitioner-employer did not get opportunity to lead evidence on the question of alleged misconduct committed by the respondent workmen and therefore, the impugned award is fully legal and justified. It is argued that since the termination was founded on misconduct and no domestic enquiry was conducted, therefore, the Labour Court has rightly ordered reinstatement of the respondent workman in service as there was failure of principles of natural justice.

4. Heard.

5. Upon hearing the rival parties, it is seen that as per the reply filed by the petitioner-employer before the Labour Court, the respondent workman was terminated on account of misconduct. He also allegedly committed physical sabotage in the office when he was terminated from service. The Labour Court did not frame issues, but framed a point of determination that whether the termination of services of the respondent workman is proper and valid and if not, then to what relief to which he is entitled.

6. If the domestic enquiry had been held, then the Labour Court was required to frame a preliminary issue that whether the domestic enquiry is legally valid or proper and if the Labour Court had come to the conclusion that the domestic enquiry was not valid and proper, then it should have granted opportunity to the employer to read evidence as to misconduct. As in the present case, admittedly no enquiry was held, then the Labour Court was not required to frame any preliminary issue, but after coming to the conclusion that no enquiry was held, then instead of simply reinstating the respondent workman in service, it was under obliga