THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH WRIT PETITION No. 16602 of 2009. ORDER: Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for the respondent Corporation. This writ petition is filed seeking to issue an order, direction or writ more particularly a writ in the nature of a Writ of Certiorari calling for the records in I.D.No. 19 of 2006 dt. 26.10.2007 on the file of the 1st respondent and quash the same as illegal, arbitrary and unjust and consequently set aside the Award dt. 26.10.2007 in the above I.D. The case of the petitioner is that he was appointed as a Conductor in the respondent Corporation in the year 1982 and that on 22.11.1984 he attended to his duties as usually and returned to home and while he was at his house, he received an information stating that his relative expired due to heart stroke and on receiving the same, he went to attend the funeral ceremony of his relative by informing the same to the Depot Supervisor but even then, on 23.11.1984 he was shown as absent to his duties and a charge sheet dt. 7.12.1985 was issued to the petitioner calling for his explanation for his unauthorised absence on 23.11.1984. The petitioner submitted his explanation to the charge sheet and after considering the explanation of the petitioner, the respondent imposed a penalty of deferment of annual increment for one year by the order dt. 12.12.1985. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner preferred an appeal to the Appellate Authority but his appeal was not disposed of and when he filed a reminder on 30.6.2004, his appeal was rejected on 24.2.2005. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner raised Industrial Dispute before the Conciliation Officer-cum- Assistant Commissioner of Labour under Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act. 1947 (for short ‘the Act’) and as there was no amicable settlement, the Conciliation Officer sent failure report to the Government. The Government in exercise of powers under Section 10(1) (d) of the Act, by G.O.Rt.No. 1820, Labour Employment, Training & Factories (Lab.I) Department dt. 26.08.2006 referred the dispute to the Industrial Tribunal-II, Hyderabad for adjudication by framing the following points: “Whether the action of the Depot Manager, APSRTC, Naketpally Depot is justified in imposing the punishment of deferment of annual increment which next falls due for a period of one year with cumulative effect vide his order dt. 12.12.1985 against Sri.K.R.Reddy, Conductor, E.No. 97574? If not, to what relief the workman is entitled?” The 1st respondent numbered the reference as I.D.No. 19 of 2006. The petitioner also filed claim statement before the 1st respondent and the respondent Corporation also filed counter and that the matter was posted for inquiry on 26.10.2007. On 26.10.20078, the 1st respondent dismissed the I.D. for default and consequently a ‘Nil’ Award was passed. Aggrieved by the same, the present writ petition is filed. The learned Counsel for the petitioner contended that under Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, where the appropriate Government is of opinion that any industrial dispute exists or is apprehended, it may at any time, by order in writing refer the dispute to Boards, Courts or Tribunals and that under Section 15 of the Act, where an industrial dispute has been referred to a Labour Court, Tribunal or National Tribunal for adjudication, it shall hold its proceedings expeditiously and shall within the period specified in the order referring such industrial dispute or the further period extended under the second proviso to sub-section (2-A) of Section 10 submit its award to the appropriate Government. Relying on Sections 10 and 15 of the Act, the learned Counsel for the petitioner contended that where any industrial dispute has been referred to a Industrial Tribunal-II for adjudication, it shall hold its proceedings and submit its award to the appropriate Government and the Industrial Tribunal-II has no power to dismiss the dispute for default. He further contended that the Industrial Tribunal-II dismissed the dispute for default on 26.102007 without passing the Award on merits as against the provisions of Section 15 of the Act and therefore the impugned Award is illegal and the same is liable to be set aside. In support of his contention, the learned Counsel for the petitioner relied on a decision of the Karnataka High Court in T.S.Zingade vs. Karnataka State Board Corporation, Bijapur [1]wherein the Karnataka High Court held as under: “In view of the working in Section 15 of the Act, there is no power in the Labour Court to reject the reference merely on the ground that one or the other party was absent on the date of hearing. The Labour Court is under statutory duty to submit it to the Government. The word ‘award’ used in section 15 means, a decision on merits on the question referred to it for adjudication and not an order of ex parte rejection. In the present case, though the impugned order is called as ‘award’, it is not an award at all because the Labour Court has not answered the question referred to it, on merits. The Labour Court ought to have called upon the respondent to justify the dismissal. Without calling upon the respondent to do so, the Labour Court closed the case merely on the ground that the claimant was absent. In doing so, the Labour Court failed to discharge the duty imposed on it under Section 15 of the Act.” For proper appreciation of the case on hand, it is necessary to extract Section 15 of the Act, which reads as under: “15. Duties of Labour Courts, Tribunals and National Tribunals:-Where an industrial dispute has been referred to a Labour Court, Tribunal or National Tribunal for adjudication, it shall hold its proceedings expeditiously and shall within the period specified in the order referring such industrial dispute or the further period extended under the second proviso to sub- section (2-A) of Section 10 submit its award to the appropriate Government.” On a true and fair construction of Section 15 of the Act goes to show that there is no power in the Industrial Tribunal-II to reject the reference merely on the ground that one or the other party was absent on the date of hearing and the Labour Court is under statutory duty to submit it to the Government and that the word ‘award’ used in section 15 means, a decision on merits on the question referred to it for adjudication and not an order of ex parte rejection. In the instant case, the Industrial Tribunal-II dismissed the dispute as under: “On 26.10.2007 Petitioner called absent. Petitioner’s advocate not present. Hence, I.D. is dismissed for default and a Nil Award is passed. No order as to costs.” The above order of the Industrial Tribunal-II clearly goes to show that it was not an order on merits and the same is against the true spirit of Section 15 of the Act. For the foregoing reasons, the writ petition is allowed. The Award dt. 26.10.2007 in I.D.No. 19 of 2006 passed by the 1st respondent is set aside. The matter is remitted back to the Industrial Tribunal-II for fresh adjudication on merits. There shall be no order as to costs. __________________ G.CHANDRAIAH,J 20.04.2010. KRB. THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH WRIT PETITION No. 16602 of 2009. Dt. 20.04.2010 [1] 1979 (38) FLR 202.