2026:JHHC:16573-DB -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI L.P.A. No. 557 of 2023 With I.A. No. 1234 of 2024 The Management of M/s Hindustan Times, Jharkhand unit, having its office at Kokar Industrial Area, P.S.- Sadar, P.O.- Ranchi Dist.- Ranchi, represented through its Authorized Representative Shri Sanjeet Kumar Singh, S/o Late P.N. Singh, R/o - Flat No. 4A, Arihant Apartment, Dipatoli, P.O.-Kokar, P.S.-Bariatu, Dist - Ranchi (Jharkhand) … … … Appellant Versus Ashok Karan, S/o- Late Jamuna Prasad Karan, Resident of Bhaskar Complex, Morabadi, PS-Bariatu, P.O. & Dist. Ranchi (Jharkhand) … … … Respondent --------- CORAM: HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH SHANKAR --------- For the Appellant: Mr. Ajit Kumar, Sr. Advocate Mr. Rajeev Kumar Sinha, Advocate For the Respondent: Mr. Dhananjay Kumar Dubey, Advocate Mr. Raju Koiri, Advocate --------- 06/Dated: 09.06.2026 I.A. No. 1234 of 2024 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. This I.A. seeks condonation of the delay of 15 days in instituting this Letters Patent Appeal. 3. Mr Ajit Kumar submits that the respondent has been duly served in this matter. 4. We have perused the averments in the I.A., and we are satisfied that this delay has been sufficiently explained. The delay is also not inordinate. 5. Accordingly, we condone the delay and dispose of this I.A. 2026:JHHC:16573-DB -2- L.P.A. No. 557 of 2023 6. This L.P.A. challenges the judgment and order dated 30th June 2023, which dismissed the appellant’s W.P.(L) No. 369 of 2010. The appellant instituted W.P.(L) No. 369 of 2010 to challenge the following orders: (a) Order dated 27.03.2009 passed by the Labour Court at Ranchi, holding the enquiry into the charges against the respondent-workman and leading to the termination of the respondent-workman’s services, as invalid; (b) The Award dated 29.07.2009 in Reference Case No. 8 of 2005, made by the Labour Court, Ranchi, holding that the termination of the respondent-workman was illegal and unjustified, and directing the appellant herein to reinstate the respondent-workman with 50% back wages. 7. In this Letters Patent Appeal, Mr Ajit Kumar, the learned senior counsel for the appellant, did not make any submissions regarding the validity of the order dated 27.03.2009. However, he submitted that the Labour Court, after holding that the domestic enquiry was not legal and proper, should have granted the appellant an opportunity to lead evidence to establish the charges against the respondent-workman. He submitted that the denial of such an opportunity amounted to the violation of principles of natural justice and fair play and was contrary to the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation Vs. Lakshmidevamma (Smt) and another, (2001) 5 SCC 433 and Divyash Pandit Vs. Management, NCCBM, (2005) 2 SCC 684. 8. Mr Ajit Kumar further submitted that a settlement was reached between the appellant (employer) and the respondent-workman before 2026:JHHC:16573-DB -3- the Labour Court made its Award on 27.07.2009. Given this settlement, the Labour Court erred in making the Award and in directing the reinstatement of the respondent-workman with 50% back wages. 9. Mr Ajit Kumar submitted that there was no evidence that the respondent-workman was not gainfully employed after his termination. He therefore submitted that the Labour Court was not justified in awarding 50% back wages without ascertaining this aspect of the gainful employment. 10. Mr Dubey, the learned counsel for the respondent, defended the impugned judgment and order based on the reasoning reflected therein. He submitted that the appellant, in its written statement filed before the Labour Court, never sought any opportunity to lead fresh evidence. He submitted that the order dated 06.06.2009 by which the Labour Court dismissed the appellant’s application for leading fresh evidence was also never challenged. He submitted that from 29.07.2009, the appellant has neither reinstated the respondent nor paid any back wages. 11. Mr Dubey submitted that there was no settlement as contemplated under the I.D. Act. Some of the amounts paid to the respondent were the dues prior to his illegal and unjustified termination. He submitted that the reference was made on 08.09.2005 under Section 10(1)(c) of the I.D. Act was never challenged by the appellant on the ground that the issue was already settled under any valid settlement under the I.D. Act. 12. Learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the respondent, in his written statement, had clearly made a statement that he was not gainfully employed. Therefore, the onus was on the appellant to prove that the respondent was gainfully employed. No evidence was laid by the appellant on this aspect. Therefore, full back wages should have been awarded, not only 50%. 2026:JHHC:16573-DB -4- 13. The rival contentions now fall for determination. 14. At the outset, we note and record that no argument was raised regarding the order dated 27.03.2009 made by the Labour Court holding that the enquiry which led to the termination of the respondent-workman was invalid or not legal and proper. Similarly, Mr Ajit Kumar admitted that the Labour Court’s order dated 06.06.2009, dismissing the appellant’s application dated 11.04.2009 for an opportunity to lead evidence afresh before the Labour Court to establish the charges against the respondent- workman, was never challenged at any stage. The record shows that even in W.P.(L) No. 369 of 2010, there was no challenge to this order dated 06.06.2009. 15. Admittedly, the Labour Court and the learned Single Judge have held that the domestic enquiry in this case was invalid and vitiated by non-compliance with the principles of natural justice and fair play. There are concurrent findings of fact on this point, and upon perusal of the same, we are satisfied that the domestic enquiry was indeed invalid and violated the principles of natural justice and fair play. Therefore, quite correctly, no arguments were advanced in this appeal regarding the validity or fairness of the domestic enquiry. 16. In this case, there is no dispute that the appellant, in its written statement, never sought any opportunity to lead fresh evidence if the Labour Court were to conclude that the domestic enquiry was invalid, unfair and in violation of the principles of natural justice. Belatedly, an application was filed seeking leave to lead fresh evidence. However, the Labour Court rejected this application on 06.06.2009. As noted earlier, the order dated 06.06.2009 was never challenged in W.P.(L) No. 369 of 2010. 2026:JHHC:16573-DB -5- 17. Even otherwise, in the facts and circumstances of this case, the Labour Court has correctly held that the appellant was not entitled to any fresh opportunity. The learned Single Judge, after considering the matter in some detail, has also concurred with the view taken by the Labour Court. The Labour Court relied upon the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Shambhu Nath Goyal Vs. Bank of Baroda and others, 1983 LAB. I.C. 1697. 18. The learned Single Judge has considered several decisions on the stage at which an application to lead fresh evidence must be made. This includes the decision in the Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation case (supra). 19. The learned Single Judge, after considering however the facts and circumstances of this case, and given the law laid down in Shambhu Nath Goyal (supra), which view, was substantially upheld by the Constitution Bench in Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation (supra) held that there was no perversity or illegality in the Labour Court’s Award and order dated 06.06.2009 in declining the appellant leave to lead fresh evidence, based upon a belated application seeking such relief. 20. In Shambhu Nath Goyal (supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that where a dispute is referred to the Tribunal/Labour Court, the management must seek an opportunity to adduce further evidence, if any, against the workman’s charges (regarding non-compliance with the principle of natural justice) in its reply statement itself, and not by way of a belated application. The Hon’ble Supreme Court further held that if it does not choose to do so at that stage, it cannot be allowed to do so at any later stage of the proceedings by filing any application for that purpose, which may result in delay, wreck the morale of the workman, and compel him to surrender, which he may not otherwise do. 2026:JHHC:16573-DB -6- 21. In the Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation (supra), the majority has specifically approved the decision in the Shambhu Nath Goyal case (supra). However, it was also observed that, in a given case, the Labour Court/Tribunal may, at any stage before the closure of the proceedings, require or direct the parties to lead additional evidence if, on the facts and circumstances, it is deemed necessary in the interests of justice. The observations in Divyash Pandit (supra) are to the same effect. 22. In the facts and circumstances of the present case, the Labour Court and the learned Single Judge have concurrently held that the interests of justice do not require any excessive latitude to be extended to the appellant (employer). This was a case in which the respondent was terminated on 22.02.2005 following a defective enquiry that failed to comply with the principles of natural justice and fair play. The reference was made on 08.09.2005, and in the written statement filed, the appellant-employer did not even seek leave to lead fresh evidence if the enquiry was found to be defective or in breach of the principles of natural justice and fair play. 23. At the belated stage, after the enquiry was found to be defective and in violation of principles of natural justice, an application was filed seeking leave. This could have only prolonged the misery of the respondent-workman. The grant of such permission would not have furthered the interest of justice. It is not as if the appellant was unaware of the legal position that a domestic enquiry must be consistent with the principle of natural justice and fair play. Therefore, perhaps, quite correctly, the appellant did not even challenge the order dated 06.06.2009, by which the appellant’s application for leading fresh evidence was rejected. 2026:JHHC:16573-DB -7- 24. The Labour Court and the learned Single Judge have both found that this was not a suitable case for permitting the appellant to lead fresh evidence. The concurrent approach of the two Courts can hardly be described as illegal, let alone perverse or arbitrary. 25. As for the settlement, nothing was produced on record to show that any such settlement was reached and duly recorded in accordance with the provisions of the ID Act. There is nothing on record to indicate that any settlement as contemplated under the I.D. Act was in fact reached between the parties. No contention was raised that there was any Section 2(p) or 12(3) settlement, nor was such a settlement produced on record. Mere payment of some amounts, or even the exchange of letters, can hardly amount to a binding settlement, thereby preventing the parties to the settlement from re-agitating the settled issues. 26. Crucially, on the above ground, even the appellant did not deem it proper to challenge or question the reference order dated 08.09.2005. If such a challenge were to be thrown or a preliminary objection raised and urged with all seriousness, then the Labour Court could have examined whether there was indeed any binding settlement that covered the dispute which was the subject matter of the reference. Therefore, based upon such payment made, there is no good ground to hold that the disputes between the parties had already been settled and therefore, the Labour Court should not have made the Award dated 29.07.2009. 27. On the aspect of back wages, the Tribunal, as well as the learned Single Judge, have referred to the claim settlement of the respondent- workman wherein the respondent-workman had categorically pleaded that he was not gainfully employed. Given the statement, which was duly verified, the onus shifted upon the appellant to plead and thereafter lead evidence to show that the respondent-workman was indeed gainfully 2026:JHHC:16573-DB -8- employed. No such effort was made. In any event, only 50% back wages have been awarded. The approach of the Labour Court and the learned Single Judge is entirely consistent with the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Deepali Gundu Survase v. Kranti Junior Adhyapak, [Civil Appeal No 6767/2013] 28. For all the above reasons, we are satisfied that this L.P.A. deserves to be dismissed. Accordingly, the same is dismissed without any order for costs. 29. Before we conclude, we note that the respondent in this case was terminated on 22.02.2005. The Labour Court, by the impugned Award dated 29th July 2009, directed his reinstatement with 50% back wages. The learned Single Judge dismissed the challenge to the Labour Court’s Award on 30.06.2023. It is unclear whether any interim relief operated in W.P.(L) No. 369 of 2010 [possibly not]. However, there is no dispute that, to date, the respondent-workman has neither been reinstated nor paid back wages. The appellant employer cannot be permitted to wilt the resistance or wreck the morale of the respondent-workman and frustrate the Award and the orders passed in his favour. 30. Accordingly, the appellant is directed to comply with the directions of the reinstatement within 15 days from the date of uploading of this order on the website. Similarly, 50% of the back wages must be paid or deposited in this Court within four weeks from the date of uploading this judgment and order on this Court's website, without forcing the workman to seek execution before the labour court or through the executive mechanism. 31. If the amount is deposited with this Court, the Registry must transfer it to the respondent-workman’s bank account. The learned 2026:JHHC:16573-DB -9- counsel for the respondent-workman must provide the workman’s identity and bank details so that the transfer can be made at the earliest. 32. The Letters Patent Appeal is accordingly dismissed without any order for costs. (M.S. Sonak, C.J.) (Rajesh Shankar, J.) June 09, 2026 A.F.R. VK Uploaded on 10.06.2026