1. SUMMARY OF CASE: In the case of Advocate Hammad v. Advocate Ali, the Petitioner, a senior production manager with 15 years of service at the textile mill, was terminated without notice, show-cause notice, or inquiry, as required by law. The termination letter cited gross misconduct without specific details or an opportunity for the Petitioner to defend himself. The Petitioner, who had an unblemished service record, was not paid his gratuity, provident fund, or earned leave encashment, violating the Payment of Wages Act, 1936, and the Factories Act, 1934. The Petitioner seeks reinstatement or compensation equivalent to three years' salary. The Respondent, the textile mill, contends that the termination was justified due to gross misconduct, including embezzlement and misappropriation of funds, as revealed during an internal audit. The Respondent argues that the Petitioner was given an opportunity to explain during the audit, which he failed to do, and that his threatening behavior towards junior staff constitutes misconduct. The Respondent maintains that the termination was legal and justified, and requests dismissal of the Petition with costs. 2. EVALUATION OF PETITIONER'S CASE (ADVOCATE HAMMAD): The Petitioner's case is grounded in the principles of natural justice, fair hearing, and the right to be heard. The Petitioner's unblemished service record, commendations, and the lack of prior warnings or instances of misconduct are significant. The failure to provide specific details of the alleged misconduct in the termination letter and the absence of an inquiry or hearing violate the Petitioner's rights under the Industrial Relations Act, 2012, and the principles of natural justice. The Petitioner's reliance on precedents where termination without inquiry was declared illegal and void strengthens his case. 3. EVALUATION OF RESPONDENT'S CASE (ADVOCATE ALI): The Respondent's case relies on the allegation of gross misconduct, specifically embezzlement and misappropriation of funds, and threatening behavior towards junior staff. The Respondent claims that the Petitioner was given an opportunity to explain during the internal audit, which he failed to do. The Respondent argues that the termination was legal and justified under Section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act, 2012, and that the Petitioner's previous misconduct warrants the termination. The Respondent's reliance on precedents where termination for misconduct was upheld strengthens his case. 4. STATUTORY APPLICATION: The Industrial Relations Act, 2012, mandates that no workman shall be dismissed without being given a reasonable opportunity to show cause against the proposed action. The Payment of Wages Act, 1936, and the Factories Act, 1934, require the timely payment of wages, gratuity, provident fund, and earned leave encashment. The Respondent's failure to provide specific details of the alleged misconduct and the absence of an inquiry or hearing violate the Petitioner's rights under the Industrial Relations Act, 2012. The Respondent's claim of previous misconduct does not justify the termination without an inquiry or hearing, as required by law. The Respondent's failure to pay the Petitioner's dues also constitutes a violation of the Payment of Wages Act, 1936, and the Factories Act, 1934. 5. FINAL VERDICT & ORDER: The termination of the Petitioner without notice, show-cause notice, or inquiry, as required by law, and the absence of an opportunity to be heard, violates the Petitioner's rights under the Industrial Relations Act, 2012. The Respondent's failure to provide specific details of the alleged misconduct and the absence of an inquiry or hearing further strengthens the Petitioner's case. The Respondent's claim of previous misconduct does not justify the termination without an inquiry or hearing. The Respondent's failure to provide the Petitioner with his gratuity, provident fund, and earned leave encashment also constitutes a violation of the Payment of Wages Act, 1936, and the Factories Act, 1934. The termination of the Petitioner is declared void and illegal. The Respondent is directed to reinstate the Petitioner with full back wages, continuity of service, and all consequential benefits, including gratuity, provident fund, and earned leave encashment. The Respondent is also directed to conduct a fair inquiry into the alleged misconduct and provide the Petitioner with an opportunity to be heard. If the allegations of misconduct are proven, the Respondent may consider termination, but only after a fair inquiry and hearing, in accordance with the principles of natural justice and fair hearing. The Petitioner is awarded costs.