HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD WRIT - C No. - 13237 of 2026 Court No. - 36 HON'BLE SAURABH SHYAM SHAMSHERY, J. 1. Heard Sri Amit Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Anil Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for respondent no.1. 2. Petitioner before this Court is Department of Minor Irrigation, State of U.P. Lucknow has approached this Court being aggrieved by the award passed by the Labour Court, Kanpur dated 27.8.2025, that even if Labour Court comes to a conclusion that order of termination was not passed on basis of any domestic inquiry, Labour Court cannot directly pass order of reinstatement and backwages etc without giving any opportunity to the employer to prove the charge against the workman by leading evidence before the Labour Court. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has referred a judgment passed by Supreme Court in M.L.Singla Vs. Punjab National Bank & Anr, AIR 2018 SC4668 as well of this Court in M/S Shahi Export House (Now known as Shahi Export Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Presiding Officer, Labour Court & Anr, 2026:AHC:142886, that if such an error is committed, award can be declared illegal, since it is absolutely clear from the impugned order that no opportunity was granted to the employer i.e. petitioner to prove the charge against the workman i.e. contesting respondent no.1 by leading evidence therefore, a finding returned in the impugned order that contesting respondent has worked for 240 days in a calendar year was without giving a specific finding in this regard is liable to be set-aside. 4. Learned counsel for the contesting respondent no.1 has submitted that it is not a case where not only domestic inquiry was conducted properly, but it is a case of no evidence and since it was based in regard to a document submitted by contesting respondent about 15 years ago, and since there was no proper domestic inquiry, therefore, only consequence would be to reinstate the contesting respondent no.1 with full wages, however, he has not disputed the position of law as referred above. 5. Court takes note of M.L.Singla (supra) and its relevant paragraph no.25 is reproduced hereinafter: Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Abhishek Srivastava, Amit Kumar Singh Counsel for Respondent(s) : Anil Kumar Srivastava State Of Up And Another .....Petitioner(s) Ram Kishore And Another .....Respondent(s) "25. If the Labour Court had come to a conclusion that the domestic enquiry is illegal because it was conducted in violation of the principles of natural justice thereby causing prejudice to the rights of the employee, respondent No.1-Bank was under legal obligation to prove the misconduct (charges) alleged against the appellant (employee) before the Labour Court provided he had sought such opportunity to prove the charges on merits." 6. In the aforesaid circumstances, outcome of above discussion is that Labour Court has committed an illegality since no opportunity was granted to the petitioner to prove charges against the Workman. Accordingly, impugned award dated 27.8.2025 is set- aside to the extent of order of reinstatement with back wages. 7. In view of above discussions, it is observed that so far as a finding that domestic inquiry was not fair is not disturbed. Accordingly, matter is remanded to Labour Court and it will proceed to decide the industrial dispute by calling the petitioner to lead evidence to prove charges levelled against contesting respondent no.1. 8. Aforesaid exercise shall be concluded within a period of six months. 9. Writ Petition is accordingly disposed of. September 24, 2026 SB WRIC No. 13237 of 2026 2 (Saurabh Shyam Shamshery,J.) Digitally signed by :- SANDEEP BHATTACHARYA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad