IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE ELEVENTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE 0NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO WRIT PETITION NO : 761 of 1999 Between: The Depot Manager A.P.S.R.T.C. Karimnagar.II Depot, Karimnagar ..... PETITIONER AND 1 Kapuraboina Ravinder (dismissed) S/o Komuraiah Garrepalli, Sulthanabad (M), Karimnagar Dist. (disd for default as per court order dt.21/2/03) 2 Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Rep. by Presiding Officer Godavarikhani. .....RESPONDENT(S) Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of Certiorari and call for the records relating to the impugned award dt: 15-11-1994 made in I.D.No.20/1995 on the file of the 2nd Respondent herein published on 8-1-1998 and quash the award as illegal and without jurisdiction and pass such other order or orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri Phani Kumar for SMT.P.RAJANI REDDY Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR LABOUR The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO WRIT PETITION No. 761 of 1999 ORDER: This writ petition has been instituted by the Depot Manager of the A.P.S.R.T.C., Karimnagar Depot, calling in question the validity of the award passed by the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court in I.D.No.20 of 1995, which has been raised by the 1st respondent herein. This Court by order dated 21-02-2003 dismissed the writ petition as against the 1st respondent, for the failure of the petitioner to take out notice to the 1st respondent. Today, the petitioner had taken out W.P.M.P.No.6169 of 2008, to restore the said writ petition as against the 1st respondent. Sri Venkateswar Varansi, learned counsel, accepted notice on behalf of the 1st respondent, and hence, the writ petition, as against the 1st respondent, stands restored. I have heard Sri T.D. Phani Kumar, learned counsel, on behalf of the petitioner. It is not in dispute that the A.P.S.R.T.C. has engaged the services of the 1st respondent as Driver, on daily-wage basis, on 24-01-1992. But, however, they suspected that he had not produced a genuine or valid driving licence, which is the essential requisite qualification for taking up the job as a Driver of the A.P.S.R.T.C. The complaint entertained by the A.P.S.R.T.C., at the behest and instance of somebody else, in that regard, had ultimately resulted in the petitioner passing an order on 11-10-1993, removing the 1st respondent from the services of the Corporation. It is this order, which gave rise and scope for the Industrial Dispute No.20 of 1995 to be raised. As I could gather, the Labour Court, while dealing with the Industrial Dispute No.20 of 1995, had an occasion to consider, as to whether the domestic enquiry conducted by the A.P.S.R.T.C., is valid or not. It appears to have come to the conclusion that the domestic enquiry is vitiated, and consequently it had ordered for an enquiry, to be conducted before the Labour Court, afresh. But, unfortunately, the petitioner as well as the 1st respondent had not availed of the same, and they have not let in any evidence, either oral or documentary. In that view of the matter, the Labour Court had returned a finding, that the 1st respondent-workman, is entitled to be reinstated with continuity of service and attendant benefits, but, however, he had been denied the back-wages for the period he has been kept out of employment from 11-10-1993 onwards. Learned counsel for the petitioner would urge that in the impugned award there are no reasons assigned, as to why the Labour Court had arrived at the conclusion, that the domestic enquiry conducted by the petitioner has been vitiated. I am afraid, that this contention is without any merit, for, the reasons for declaring the domestic enquiry as to have been vitiated, needed not be disclosed in the impugned award, but the same would have been disclosed during the currency and pendency of the Industrial Dispute No.20 of 1995, on the file of the Labour Court, when an order to that effect was passed by the Labour Court. The order passed by the Labour Court, to the above said effect, would be during the currency of the dispute, and hence, those very reasons, for which it arrived at the conclusion, that the domestic enquiry is vitiated; are not required to be re-stated in the final award, that is liable to be passed at the end of the enquiry of the case in I.D.No.20 of 1994. Further, the petitioner could not justify why the opportunity provided to it by the Labour Court to conduct the domestic enquiry afresh, was not availed by it. The fact remains that, pursuant to the impugned award, the A.P.S.R.T.C. has since reinstated the 1st respondent-workman, as a Driver, and as of now, there is nothing, that had come to the notice of the Corporation adversely against him. Therefore, I do not wish to interfere with the award passed by the Labour Court, as there is no material available on record for me, to come to the conclusion, that the award is otherwise vitiated. Hence, the writ petition is dismissed, but, however, without costs. ______________________________ NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO, J. Dt.11-03-2008. KO To 1.2CCs to 2.2CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WP{SAM}