2025:HHC:36020 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CMPMO No. 301 of 2022 Reserved on:- 08.10.2025 Decided on: 29.10.2025 Isolloyd Engineering and Technologies Limited .…Petitioner. Versus Shri Ravi Rana …Respondent Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 Yes For the petitioner: Mr. Janesh Gupta, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. Naresh K. Sharma, Advocate vice Mr. Chetan Viraj Sharma, Advocate. Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge By way of this petition, the petitioner has assailed the order passed by the learned Labour Court dated 09.06.2022 (Annexure P- 7), in terms whereof an application filed by the petitioner under Order 14, Rule 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure for framing of additional Issue to the effect that as to whether Domestic Enquiry conducted by the Employer was a fair Enquiry, has been rejected. 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 2025:HHC:36020 2. Brief facts necessary for the adjudication of this petition are that the respondent-workman has preferred a claim petition which is pending before learned Labour Court. In terms of the claim petition, the workman has assailed his termination and prayed for his reinstatement with consequential benefits. Reply filed to the claim petition by the employer/petitioner is inter alia to the effect that the services of the petitioner were terminated after holding of enquiry as per the Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Himachal Pradesh Rules, 1973 as amended from time to time and due process was followed in the course of holding of the enquiry and the workman was also heard. 3. During the pendency of these proceedings, an application was filed by the present petitioner/employer under Order 14, Rule 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure, for framing of an additional Issue in terms of the law laid down by Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Cooper Engineering Limited vs. Shri P.P. Mundhe (1975 AIR 1900, that when a case of dismissal or discharge of an employee is referred for industrial adjudication, the Labour Court should first decide as a preliminary issue whether the domestic enquiry has violated the principles of natural justice, however, no such Issue stood framed and accordingly a prayer was made that an Issue be framed with regard to the fairness of the domestic enquiry. 3 2025:HHC:36020 4. Said application has been rejected in terms of the impugned order by the learned Labour Court by returning the following findings:- “In my humble opinion, the framing of preliminary issue regarding fairness of enquiry in the absence of affording more opportunities to the parties to lead the evidence shall be an abuse of the process of the administration of justice. The present application has been filed at very belated stage. No purpose shall be served. Rather the litigation between the parties shall be dragged for endless movements. The case is listed for recording the evidence of the respondent since 24.3.2021. It would be appropriate to ask both the parties to lead their evidence in support of issues already framed by this Court. Therefore, this Court/Tribunal is of the opinion to try and decide the matter in controversy on merits, rather than allowing any of the parties to shortcut method. In my humble opinion there are ample grounds to decide the matter on merits. Such being the situation, the application filed by the application deserves for dismissal and accordingly the same is dismissed. It be tagged with the main case file after completion.” 4 2025:HHC:36020 5. Having heard learned Counsel for the parties and having perused the documents appended with the petitioner as well as the impugned order, this Court is of the considered view that the impugned order is perverse and not sustainable in the eyes of law. The prayer of the petitioner for framing of an additional Issue with regard to the validity of the enquiry was required to be allowed by the learned Labour Court in terms of the law laid down by Hon’ble Supreme Court of India. 6. Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Delhi Cloth and General Mills Co. Versus Ludh Budh Singh, (1972) 1 Supreme Court Cases 595, has held that when a domestic enquiry has been held by the management and the management relies on the same, it is open to the management to make a request to the Tribunal to try the validity of domestic enquiry as a preliminary issue and also ask for an opportunity to adduce evidence before the Tribunal if the finding on the preliminary Issue is against the management. 7. This view has been reiterated by Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Cooper Engineering Limited Versus Shri P.P. Mundhe, (1975) 2 Supreme Court Cases 661 (supra), in which, Hon’ble Supreme Court has been pleased to hold that when a case of dismissal or discharge of an employee is referred for industrial adjudication, the 5 2025:HHC:36020 Labour Court should first decide as a preliminary issue whether the domestic enquiry has violated the principles of natural justice or not. 8. Similar view has been taken by Hon’ble Supreme Court in Kurukshetra University Vs. Prithvi Singh, (2018) 4 Supreme Court Cases 483 and M.L. Singh Vs. Punjab National Bank and Another, (2018) 18 Supreme Court Cases 21. 9. In view of this settled position, the rejection of the application of the petitioner-Employer by the learned Labour Court is not sustainable in the eyes of law. Learned Labour Court has erred in not appreciating that there was mention of law laid down by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the application itself and in this backdrop, the rejection of the application by the learned Labour Court is a serious perversity committed by the learned Court, which renders the impugned order bad in law. 10. Accordingly, in light of above discussion, this petition is allowed and order dated 09.06.2022 (Annexure P-7) passed by Labour Court-cum-Industrial Tribunal, Shimla, HP in Reference No. 127/2017/105/22, is quashed and set aside and the learned Labour Court is directed to frame preliminary issue with regard to the validity of the domestic enquiry and proceed with the matter in terms of the law laid down by Hon’ble Supreme Court referred to hereinabove. Parties through 6 2025:HHC:36020 Counsel are directed to appear before learned Labour Court on 17.11.2025. The petition stands disposed of in above terms, so also pending miscellaneous applications, if any. (Ajay Mohan Goel) Judge October 29, 2025 (narender)