THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO WRIT PETITION No. 4332 OF 2006 O R D E R: This Writ Petition has been preferred by a Depot Manager of the state-owned Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation (henceforth referred to as ‘the Corporation’), calling in question the validity and legality of the award dated 08.11.2004 passed by the Labour Court-III, Hyderabad in I.D.No. 34 of 2002 raised by the 2nd respondent workman herein. The 2nd respondent workman was initially recruited as a casual conductor to the service of the Corporation by an order dated 06.02.1988, based upon the proceedings of the selection committee. One of the conditions contained in the order of appointment is that the selected candidate is liable to be terminated, if the documents produced by him/her at the time of selection were found to be non- genuine or fake at any later date. Since certain information has percolated to the Corporation that the certificate produced by the 2nd respondent workman is not a genuine one, the vigilance officials of the Corporation carried out the necessary investigation. Suspecting that he might be arrested, the 2nd respondent workman absented to the duties from 19.11.1992 onwards. That conduct of the 2nd respondent was viewed seriously and he was removed from service of the Corporation for unauthorized absence. That gave rise to I.D.No. 662 of 1993 by the 2nd respondent workman. While allowing the said I.D., the Labour Court preserved liberty to the Corporation to initiate appropriate disciplinary action against the employee concerned for his misconduct of producing non-genuine certificate. Thus, the disciplinary proceedings came to be initiated against the 2nd respondent. The crux of the matter is that as per the certificate produced by the 2nd respondent workman, he has secured 331 marks at the SSC examination, whereas the investigation has revealed that he has secured only 161 marks. If it is known to the Corporation at the time of selections that the 2nd respondent workman has secured only 161 marks, possibly, he would not have been selected for appointment as a conductor. Though the 2nd respondent workman has acknowledged the receipt of the charge memo and offered his explanation, he did not attend the enquiry in spite of receiving the notices in that regard sent on 26.06.2000, 14.07.2000 and 17.04.2000. As a last chance, another notice was also sent on 25.04.2001. Hence, the enquiry was conducted ex parte. Enquiry Officer returned a finding of guilt. Accepting the same, the disciplinary authority issued a show cause notice, proposing to impose punishment of removal from service. The 2nd respondent workman got issued a legal notice on 08.12.2000 to the Regional Manager, Nalgonda and the Depot Manager, Miryalaguda, complaining of non-receipt of subsistence allowance by him, instead of participating in the enquiry. Be that as it may, the Enquiry Officer’s report was sent to the 2nd respondent workman inviting his objections and comments. He filed his objections and after considering the same, his explanation was called for, for imposition of the punishment. The 2nd respondent workman submitted his explanation thereto. Since the explanation offered by the 2nd respondent workman for the alleged misconduct was not convincing and satisfactory, the disciplinary authority passed the order of punishment of removal from service on 29.09.2001. Before the Labour Court, as many as 22 documents were marked on behalf the managment. After consideration of the entire material that was brought on record, the Labour Court has arrived at the finding that the charge against the workman is not proved. Two specific reasons have been assigned for this purpose; one is that the original certificate of the SSC, which was said to have been produced by the workman at the time of his selection, has not been bought before the Labour Court at all and the second reason is that neither the complainant, who lodged the complaint Ex.M1 nor the Head Master of the school at Ghatkesar, who issued a certificate to the management of the Corporation that the SSC certificate produced by the workman is not a genuine one, have been examined before the domestic Tribunal. Therefore, the Labour Court arrived at a finding that the charge laid against the 2nd respondent workman is not proved. The Labour Court has also found that the punishment of removal from service was shockingly disproportionate and hence, it is not warranted. While setting aside the punishment, the 2nd respondent workman was directed to be paid 50% of the back wages and he was denied the attendant benefits. Heard Sri C. Sunil Kumar Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for the Corporation. He strenuously urges that upon receipt of the charge sheet, dated 03.06.2000, the writ petitioner has offered his explanation thereto, but thereafter, deliberately avoided facing the enquiry before the domestic Tribunal. He has been issued at least, on four different occasions, notices advising him to attend to the enquiry proceedings. The 2nd respondent workman, in spite of receiving those notices, has purposefully avoided facing the domestic Tribunal. Before the domestic Tribunal, the certificate issued by the Head Master of the school at Ghatkesar has been brought on record. When once a responsible Head Master of the school certifies that the original certificate produced by the 2nd respondent workman at the time of his selection is not a genuine one, the finding recorded by the Enquiry Officer holding the 2nd respondent workman guilty ought not to have been set at naught by the Labour Court lightly. The learned Standing Counsel further urges that production of fake documents by the workman is a serious misconduct. It not only depicts lack of integrity on the part of the employee, but, in effect, it amounts to securing employment through unfair means, resulting in deprival of a more genuine candidate from securing the employment. The learned Standing Counsel also submits that there is no justification for the Labour Court to have denied the right to the writ petitioner Corporation to lead evidence before it. Such an application has been moved at the very initial stage of the proceedings itself. Hence, the Corporation is not to be faulted at all. Sri G. Ravi Mohan, learned counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent workman would submit that the certificate, which the workman has produced at the time of selection, has not seen the light of the day so far. The Corporation has to preserve it carefully, whereas they are trying to shift the blame on to the Labour Court on the ground that they have produced the said certificate when the Labour Court dealt with I.D. No. 662 of 1993 raised by this very workman on the previous occasion. If the Corporation has produced an original certificate before the Labour Court, they should have promptly taken steps to retrieve the same from the custody of the Labour Court by substituting the same with an authenticated photo copy or at least after the proceedings before the Labour Court have ended, they ought to have retrieved the original documents. When once the workman himself has not produced the xerox copy (photo copy) of the SSC certificate, seeking to mark such a photo copy in evidence is impermissible. Without bringing on record the original certificate allegedly produced by the workman at the time of his selections, the charge that he has produced a fake document at the time of his selection would not stick to him. This apart, the Head Master of the school who seems to have filed an adverse report against the workman, ought to have been examined before the domestic Tribunal. If he was summoned, there would have been ample opportunity for the workman also to ascertain and verify as to the correctness of the records maintained by the school and establish his innocence in the matter. The learned counsel for the workman, Sri G. Ravi Mohan, places reliance upon a judgment rendered by a learned Single Judge of this Court in N. Subramanyam v. Chairman, Visakhapatnam Port Trust[1], in support of his contention that non-examination of the Head Master and non-production of original records of the school amounts to violation of the principles of natural justice. Further, the learned counsel would submit that the workman had suffered much at the hands of the Corporation once in the year 1993 and also from 29.09.2001 onwards, when the order of removal was passed. Keeping these factors in mind, the Labour Court has denied him the benefit of 50% of the back wages as well as the attendant benefits. What has been denied by the Labour court itself is more than adequate punishment for whatever little that the workman is accountable or guilty of. In any view of the matter, the learned counsel for the workman proceeds that the workman himself has come forward to confine his claim of back wages only to 25%, as a measure of buying peace with the Corporation. After taking into account and consideration the rival submissions, what emerges is this: the original SSC certificate said to have been produced by the 2nd respondent workman to the Corporation is not readily traceable. Now if the same were to be produced or traced out, efforts will have to be made to summon the original records from the Board of Secondary School Certificate Examinations or from the Directorate of Government Examinations. The 2nd respondent workman appears to have passed his SSC examination during October 1980. One wonders whether the records, which are more than 30 years old, are still carefully preserved by these Government offices. Therefore, I do not consider it appropriate to concede to the request of the learned Standing Counsel for the Corporation that the matter deserves to be remanded to the Labour Court, which, in turn, can summon the officials of the Board or the Directorate of Government Examinations for the purpose of producing the original records containing truthfully the marks secured by the 2nd respondent workman. Further, the domestic Tribunal has failed to examine the Head Master of the school at Ghatkesar who has issued a certificate disputing the correctness of the claim of the 2nd respondent workman. The learned counsel for the workman has, no doubt, placed strong reliance upon the judgment rendered by the learned Single Judge of this Court in N. Subramanyam v. Chairman, Visakhapatnam Port Trust (cited supra) in support of his contention that non-examination of the Head Master and non-production of the original school records amounts to denial of fair and reasonable opportunity to him. In cases of this nature, the most appropriate course for any domestic Tribunal to do was to conduct the domestic enquiry at the place where the school records are available, instead of summoning the Head Master or some official or the other of the school. Conducting the domestic enquiry at the premises of the school concerned, would help the employee to establish his case more easily and he will be able to demonstrate as to whether the records are maintained properly and correctly by the school or not and in the event the records are maintained properly, he will be able to demonstrate as to whether he is guilty of any misdemeanor on his part or not. It cannot be ruled out that sometimes all due to lack of necessary degree of care and skill, wrong entries are made by the ministerial employees in the records. Therefore, if the enquiry itself is conducted at school premises, it will positively help the employees as well as the Enquiry Officer both to be satisfied about either genuineness or lack of it in the claim or counter-claim, as the case may be. There is also one other reason why it may not be always easier to summon the Head Master of the educational institutions. Sometimes, summoning the Head Master would interfere with the academic schedules of the schools. Some other times, it can interfere with the examination schedules of the school in which event, the Head Masters will be more concerned towards their obligation to be present at the school where examinations are going on rather than prefer to stay away there from to attend the enquiries. Hence, it would be all the more appropriate to fix a convenient date for conducting the domestic enquiry at the school premises itself. I am in complete agreement with the adverse findings recorded by the labour Court against the domestic Tribunal. In the absence of credible material, the conclusion reached by the Labour Court that the charge that the 2nd respondent workman has produced bogus certificates cannot stick to him. Therefore, to this extent, the findings of the Labour Court cannot be characterized as perverse findings, warranting interference at my hands. By denying substantial portion of back wages and attendant benefits, the Labour Court tired to balance the competing interests of the employer and the employee. Added to it, the 2nd respondent workman has gracefully confined his claim to back wages to 25%. He has filed an affidavit to that effect into the Court on 23.02.2011. The genuine interest shown by the respondent workman to buy peace with the Corporation has to be appreciated. Therefore, to bring the curtains down once and for all, instead of allowing the parties to unproductively go on litigating, I consider it appropriate to modify the award passed by the Labour Court only to the extent of substituting the component of payment of back wages to 25%, as per the concession held out by the 2nd respondent workman in his affidavit dated 23.02.2011. In all other respects, the award of the Labour Court is confirmed. The 2nd respondent workman deserves to be reinstated, and it is brought out that he has already been reinstated. He is only entitled to payment of 25% back wages. The 2nd respondent workman is not entitled to the attendant benefits also. Subject to the modification stated supra, the Writ Petition deserves to be dismissed and accordingly, it is dismissed, but however, without costs. ---------------------------------- (NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO, J) 24th February 2011 ksld [1] 1998 Labour and Industrial Cases 1004