THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH W.P.NO.26777 OF 2001 O R D E R Heard both the counsel. 2. Aggrieved by the award dated 30.07.2001 passed by the Industrial Tribunal – cum – Labour Court, Godavrikhani, in granting only reinstatement afresh without any attendant benefits, the workman who is working as conductor in the respondent – Corporation, filed the present writ petition. 3. The petitioner was conductor in the respondent – corporation and while so, on 16.11.1996, when he was conducting the bus, a check was exercised and it was alleged that there are cash and ticket irregularities. After conducting domestic enquiry, the petitioner was terminated from service on 9.5.1997 and the appeal and review filed by him ended in rejection. Hence, he raised I.D. and by the impugned award, he was directed to be reinstated into service afresh. 4. The case of the petitioner as stated in the writ affidavit and also as submitted by his counsel is that the enquiry was conducted in violation of the principles of natural justice and that the Tribunal without considering the same and further though the petitioner has denied the charges leveled against him, without any reasoning, held that the charges are proved. Therefore, he sought to modify the impugned award by awarding attendant benefits along with reinstatement. 5. The Standing Counsel for the respondent – Corporation supporting the impugned order sought for dismissal of the writ petition. 6. From a perusal of the impugned award it could be seen that the Tribunal by noting the contents of the documents marked before the enquiry officer and in a cryptic manner without appreciating the contentions of the parties, held that the charges leveled against the petitioner are proved. This cannot be said to be a proper adjudication of dispute by the Tribunal. Further, the Tribunal has not recorded any reasons for not exercising the discretionary jurisdiction under Section 11-A of the Act, for not granting the relief to the petitioner. In similar circumstances, this court in W.P.No.24815/2000 dated 15.11.2008 held as under: 11. Therefore, from the above judgments of the Apex Court and this court, it is clear that the Tribunal shall first decide the validity of the domestic enquiry and further by re-evaluating the evidence, which was adduced before the disciplinary authority and by giving sufficient reasons, has to record findings thereof and then only it can be said that proper adjudicating procedure has been followed. On the contrary if the Tribunal by not framing appropriate issues and without any discussion on the disputed issues, and only by noting the exhibits marked and the contents therein, holds the workman guilty, it cannot be said that Tribunal has followed the procedure and it is an incomplete exercise in haste and in utter disregard to the fundamental rights of the parties guaranteed under the Constitution of India. 12. Therefore, for the foregoing reasons, the impugned award is set aside and the matter is remitted to the Tribunal to dispose of the same afresh within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs.” 7. In view of the above judgment, the impugned award is set aside and the matter is remitted back to the Tribunal to dispose of the matter afresh within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 8. Since the petitioner was reinstated pursuant to the award of the Tribunal and the Corporation has not filed any writ petition challenging the impugned award of the Tribunal, status quo shall be continued till the disposal of the I.D. 9. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of. No costs. AVS ---------------------------- 06—09—2011