THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA W.P. No. 35366 of 1998 O r d e r: Assailing the award dated 02.04.1994, passed by the Labour Court, Godavarikhani, dismissing the industrial dispute raised by the petitioner in I.D. No. 135 of 1992, he filed the present writ petition. The petitioner while working the respondents-APSRTC as Conductor was charge sheeted on the charge that he produced bogus SSC certificate. The petitioner submitted his explanation, but dissatisfied with the same, the respondents conducted enquiry. Based on the findings arrived at by the enquiry officer, which held that the charges levelled against the petitioner were proved, he was dismissed from service. Assailing the said order, the petitioner raised an industrial dispute, and the Labour Court by reason of the award impugned in this writ petition, dismissed the same. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that once the Labour Court having held that the domestic enquiry conducted is valid, committed an error in permitting the respondents-APSRTC to adduce evidence, and basing on such evidence, it could not have come to the conclusion that the charges levelled against the petitioner are proved. Hence, he submitted that the impugned award, passed by the Labour Court dismissing the I.D. confirming the order of removal, is liable to be set aside. On the other hand, the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents-APSRTC submitted that they examined the School Assistant and marked Exs. M1 and M2, and even though opportunity was given to the respondents to cross-examine, neither the petitioner nor his counsel was present, and there was no representation made on their behalf, and in those circumstances, the Labour Court closed the evidence. Thereafter, after hearing the Labour Officer of the respondents, and basing on the material available on record, dismissed the I.D., and no interference is called for therewith. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents-APSRTC and perused the impugned award. A reading of the impugned award, would disclose that as the petitioner did not assail the validity of the departmental enquiry, the Labour Court held that there was no need to give any finding as to the validity of the departmental enquiry, but found that no oral evidence was let in nor any documents marked on behalf of the petitioner, but on behalf of the respondents, not only oral evidence has been let in (two documents) were also marked. The Labour Court further found that the petitioner after filing the I.D. failed to attend the Court from 02.09.2003, and that his counsel also did not represent the matter. It is not that the respondents on their behalf have examined a person not related to the case, but they have examined the School Assistant of the school, from which the petitioner is said to have passed the examination, and even the documents Exs. M1 and M2, marked are no other than the letter addressed by the respondents to the school and the memo of marks. Even though the Labour Court provided opportunity to the petitioner to cross-examine him, the fact remains, neither the petitioner nor his counsel turned up. In those circumstances, the Labour Court closed the evidence, and proceeded further. Even at the time of final hearing of the I.D., neither the petitioner nor his counsel were present, and as such, the Labour Court came to the conclusion that the petitioner is not having any interest in prosecuting the case. However, after hearing the Law Officer of the respondents, and having analysed the evidence on record, came to the conclusion that the memo of marks submitted by the petitioner at the time of entry into service did not tally with the school record, for the marks secured and the roll number are totally different. Since the petitioner secured employment by producing bogus SSC certificate, the Labour Court upheld the order of removal. The petitioner having filed the I.D. ought to have prosecuted the same. He having failed to prosecute the same cannot find fault with the action of the Labour Court in permitting the respondents to adduce evidence. Had the petitioner attended the Court and contested the matter, this situation would not have arisen. If, despite the petitioner attending the Court and taking objection, the Labour Court had permitted the respondents to adduce evidence, then the petitioner would have been justified in contending that the course adopted by the Labour Court is wrong, but that is not the case. The petitioner himself has to be blamed for the course adopted by the Labour Court. At any rate, since the petitioner did not dispute the validity of the enquiry, no exception can be taken to the award passed by the Labour Court, which confirmed the order of removal passed against the petitioner on the ground that the SSC certificate produced by him is not genuine. For the foregoing reasons, I find no merit in the writ petition, and the same is accordingly dismissed. No costs. ________________ N.V. RAMANA, J. Dated: 25th January, 2008. KSR