THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. RAMULU W.P. No. 36962 of 1998 O R D E R: This writ petition is filed seeking a Certiorari calling for the records from 1st respondent in I.D. No. 48 of 1996 dated 30.6.1998 and quash that portion of the Award whereunder the Labour Court held the petitioner guilty of charges and further held that there is no victimization of the petitioner by the respondent-Management, as arbitrary and illegal. It is the case of the petitioner that he was appointed as a Trainee in Hyderabad Allwyn Limited on 5.5.1986 for a period of one year and subsequently his services were confirmed in the year 1987. He had activity participated in the trade union movement and was elected to the posts of Vice President, General Secretary, President etc. While so, the Hyderabad Allwyn Limited was trifurcated in the year 1993 into a) Allwyn Refrigeration, b) Allwyn Watches and c) Allwyn Auto Limited. The employees were accordingly distributed among those three units. The petitioner was working as Technician and there was no complaint from any quarter. However, he was charge sheeted with several allegations on 4.9.1995 stating that he assaulted a superior officer which would amount to misconduct under Clause 19(1) (9) and (10) of the Certified Standing Orders of 2nd respondent. Though he had submitted explanation, the said explanation was not considered properly and he was dismissed by an order dated 23.3.1996. Challenging the said order of dismissal, he filed I.D. No. 48 of 1996 before the Labour Court, Hyderabad. Before the Labour Court, the petitioner was examined as WW-1 and Exs.W-1 to W-15 were got marked on his behalf. Whereas, on behalf of respondent-Management, MWs 1 and 2 were examined and Exs.M-1 to M-25 were marked. Considering both oral and documentary evidence, the Labour Court, with regard to the allegation made by the petitioner that he was subjected to victimization and unfair Labour Practices by the respondent-Management, held that no such victimization and unfair labour practices by the respondent- Management is proved by the petitioner. Further with regard to the charge framed against the petitioner that he assaulted the Foreman (MW-1), the Labour Court held that the evidence of MW-1 coupled with the evidence of MWs 2 and 3 amply proved that the petitioner has abused and assaulted the Foreman. However, considering the fact that the punishment inflicted upon the petitioner is disproportionate to the alleged misconduct, the Labour Court directed the respondent- Management to reinstate the petitioner into service within one month from the date of publication of the Award, with continuity of service and all other attendant benefits and with 50% backwages. The grievance of the petitioner is that without considering the grounds taken by the petitioner that he was subjected to victimization and that the Enquiry Officer did not give him adequate opportunity to further cross-examine MWs 1 and 2 and thus the enquiry was not conducted properly etc., the Labour Court by an order dated 30.6.1998 erroneously held that the enquiry is proper and valid, there is no victimisation and that the charge leveled against him is proved. It is against this part of the order passed by the Labour Court dated 30.6.1998 , that the petitioner has filed the writ petition. Heard both sides and perused the impugned Award and other material made available on record. In so far as the plea of the petitioner that he was victimized and the respondent-management has resorted to unfair labour practices against him, absolutely no evidence was placed by him before the Labour Court in this regard. In fact, petitioner did not plead victimization and unfair labour practice in the claim petition or additional claim petition filed by him. On 30.7.1997, Labour Court recorded that there was no violation of any procedure or principles of natural justice in conducting the enquiry and, therefore, held that the enquiry conducted by the respondent-management was valid. In fact, petitioner filed Application No. 301 of 1997 on 30.9.1997 seeking permission to lead oral and documentary evidence on the plea of victimization, unfair labour practice and proportionality of punishment, even though there was no plea of victimization and unfair labour practice till then. The said petition was contested by respondent- management by filing detailed counter, contending that evidence is necessary to substantiate a contention which is pleaded, but the question of substantiating a non-existing plea by adducing evidence does not arise. However, the said petition was allowed on 6.11.1997 and the petitioner was advised to amend his pleadings on the grounds of victimization and unfair labour practice, and permission was given to respondent-management to file counter to such amended pleadings. Thereafter, petitioner filed I.A. No. 334 of 1997 on 19.11.1997 seeking permission to amend the claim petition on the grounds of victimization and unfair labour practice by respondent and the same was allowed. In this regard, the Labour Court gave finding that initially when petitioner filed claim petition or additional claim petition, he did not take such plea of victimization and it is only when he was advised to file amended pleadings, he has taken such plea of victimization and unfair labour practice i.e. one and half year after raising the Industrial Dispute. Therefore, the Labour Court has rightly come to the conclusion that it is nothing but an after thought and that the domestic enquiry is valid. Apart from that, no details as to victimization and unfair labour practice were furnished by the petitioner, except stating that he was dismissed by way of victimization and unfair labour practice. The pleadings raised by the petitioner do not satisfy the ingredients of Clauses (a) to (c) of Section 28K of the Act in order to come to any conclusion that he was subjected to victimization and unfair labour practice. It is interesting to notice that the petitioner was Vice President, General Secretary and President of the Trade Union. Thus, he was leader of the Trade Union for long time, but he did not take any plea of victimization or unfair labour practice at the first instance and raised the said plea at a very belated stage, which is nothing but a futile effort to impress upon the Labour Court. In so far as the finding that the petitioner was guilty of insubordination and misbehaviour etc., in the light of the evidence available on record, it is difficult for the petitioner to get over such finding arrived at by respondent-management, as confirmed by the Labour Court. The evidence of MW-1 – victim and MWs 2 and 3 – Assistant Manager and Senior Manager respectively, clinchingly proves that petitioner had abused and assaulted MW-1. Absolutely, no contrary evidence was adduced by the petitioner to rebut the said allegation. Except petitioner, no other person was examined on his behalf in this regard. In the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the opinion that the findings recorded by the Labour Court confirming the findings of the respondent-management do not call for any interference by this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In fact, though the charges are very serious in nature and the petitioner was found guilty of the said charges, the Labour Court, in its wisdom, while exercising its powers under Section 11-A of the Industrial Disputes Act and in the facts and circumstances of the case, took a lenient view and held that punishment of dismissal from service was unwarranted and it is disproportionate to that of the misconduct alleged and proved, and thus directed respondent-management to reinstate the petitioner into service with continuity of service, all other attendant benefits and 50% of the backwages. The writ petition is devoid of merit and liable to be dismissed. It is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. JUSTICE C.V. RAMULU. Date: 7-4-2010. MVB.