CWP No. 1417 of 2007 9.3.2010 Present: Mr. Rajeev Sood, counsel for the petitioner. Ms. Ruma Kaushik, Additional Advocate General, for the respondents No. 2 and 5. The petitioner challenges the award of the Industrial Tribunal- cum-Labour Court, Shimla to the extent wherein the learned court has directed an inquiry to be initiated against the Director of Urban Development. The respondent Des Raj had instituted proceedings before the learned Labour Court stating that his termination was contrary to the provisions of The Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and that retrenchment was without compliance of the mandatory provisions of law. He appeared as his own witness and stated that he was made to work by the Director Urban at his residence in Delhi and Shimla. The directions given by the learned Court are:- “It has been come in evidence that the petitioner was taken by Director Urban Development at his house at Delhi where he was kept for 3 months and thereafter, the petitioner was directed to work in Dayanand Public School Shimla where the wife of the Director Dr. Vinod Gupta is serving as principal. The misuse of power and government money by the person sitting at high position is required to be investigated and a high level inquiry is required to be instituted. Let a copy of this order be sent to the Chief Secretary to the government of Himachal Pradesh to look into the matter personally and high level inquiry into the matter may be ordered and the liability, if proved, necessary civil/criminal action be taken against the person at fault.” I find in the petition that the Director Urban was impleaded as a party-respondent by an application dated 13.9.2004. Evidence of the petitioner which is his statement leveling allegations against the Director Urban was recorded on 13.10.2003. Obviously, under these circumstances, the petitioner herein had no chance of representing CWP No. 1417 of 2007 his case or of being heard in the matter or cross examining the workman. The direction contained practically accepts the allegations made by the respondent workman against the Director. It is well settled law that no person can be condemned unheard merely on the allegations levelled against him unless allegations are supported by some corroborative evidence and the affected party has been given a chance of being heard. The directions are omnibus in nature and cannot be sustained especially in view of the fact that the petitioner herein was not given opportunity to cross-examine the workman. Under there circumstances, this writ petition is allowed. The observations made in paragraph-14 of the judgment of the learned Labour Court as extracted above are directed to be taken of the record. Needless to say that if the petitioner is otherwise responsible for any act which is contrary to law, it is open to the respondent-State to take such action as is permissible. No order as to the costs. (Dev Darshan Sud), J. 9th March, 2010 (vs)