IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) PRESENT THE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI ANIL R. DAVE AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT APPEAL NO.1447 OF 2009 Dt.15.12.2009 Between: The District Cooperative Central Bank Ltd., Rep. by its Chief Executive Officer (CEO) Nagamallithota, Kakinada East Godavari District … Appellant And The Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court Rep. by its Presiding Officer, Visakhapatnam and another … Respondents Counsel for the Appellant: Sri Srinivas Basava Counsel for respondent No.1: - Counsel for Respondent No.2: Sri V.V.S.S. Kameswara Rao, representing Sri Challa Dhananjaya THE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI ANIL R. DAVE AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT APPEAL NO.1447 OF 2009 JUDGMENT: (per the Hon’ble Sru Justice C.V. Nagarjuna Reddy) This Writ Appeal is filed by the petitioner in Writ Petition No.28918 of 2008 feeling aggrieved by order dt.25.11.2009 of the learned Single Judge, whereby she dismissed the Writ Petition. Respondent No.2 was a workman of the appellant. Challenging his dismissal, respondent No.2 moved respondent No.1 – Tribunal by way of an industrial dispute, which was registered as I.D.No.5 of 2006. Respondent No.1 held that the domestic enquiry held by the appellant was valid. However, the appellant filed an application for receiving the original of explanation filed by respondent No.2 during the domestic enquiry. The said application was dismissed by respondent No.1. Writ Petition No.28918 of 2008, filed by the appellant questioning the said order, having been dismissed, the appellant filed the present appeal. Having heard the learned Counsel for the appellant and perused the orders of the learned Single Judge and of respondent No.1, we are of the view that they do not suffer from any error calling for interference in exercise of our letters patent jurisdiction. However, dismissal of the appellant’s application will not disentitle it to place reliance on the document in question, namely, the explanation submitted by respondent No.2 in domestic enquiry, as, admittedly it forms part of the enquiry record. Respondent No.1 is, therefore, bound to consider the entire record, including the explanation submitted by respondent No.2 in the domestic enquiry while adjudicating the industrial dispute pending before it. Subject to the above observations, the Writ Appeal is disposed of. As a sequel to disposal of the Writ Appeal, W.A.M.P. No.3003 of 2009, filed by the appellant – petitioner for interim relief, is disposed of as infructuous. ______________ ANIL R. DAVE, CJ ______________________ C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 15.12.2009 bnr