THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION No. 24874 OF 2007 O R D E R: The petitioner claims to have been appointed as NMR on 1.6.1988 in Rajendranagar Municipality, the 1st respondent herein. He stated that he was extended the beneﬁt of pay-scale, with eﬀect from 1.4.1992, and continued in service up to 31.12.1999. Complaining that he was orally terminated, with eﬀect from 1.1.2000, he approached the Labour Court-I, Hyderabad, under Section 2-A(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, by ﬁling I.D.No.227 of 2003. Later on, it was transferred to the Industrial Tribunal-II, Hyderabad, and renumbered as I.D.No.145 of 2005. the Tribunal passed an award dated 4.1.2007, rejecting the claim of the petitioner, mostly on the ground that there is some discrepancy, as to the name of the petitioner, when compared to the one, in the various proceedings, and that the documents relied upon by the petitioner were not proved. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the respondents. A perusal of the award passed by the Tribunal discloses that totally untenable approach was adopted, in the context of the appreciation of oral and documentary evidence. On his part, the petitioner ﬁled the proceedings issued by the Government, sanctioning the minimum of the pay-scale and a Service Certiﬁcate. It is rather curious, if not astonishing, that the learned Presiding Oﬃcer insisted that the petitioner ought to have examined the authorities, who issued the certiﬁcates, and the persons mentioned therein. Further, except denying the case of the petitioner, the respondents did not produce any record, worth its name. The only person examined on behalf of the respondents was a Junior Assistant. The question as to whether the petitioner was employed by the respondents, would certainly have been sorted out, by requiring the respondents, to prove contrary to what was urged by the petitioner, on the basis of the proceedings of the Government. To clear the doubt expressed by the respondents, as well as the Industrial Tribunal, the petitioner himself ﬁled I.A.No.6 of 2006, to summon the documents in relation to certain proceedings relied upon by him. Even this was not dealt with properly. This information was elicited from the solitary witness, examined on behalf of the respondents. The Tribunal proceeded totally on impermissible lines and dismissed the I.D. This court is of the view that the matter deserves to be decided by the Industrial Tribunal, afresh. Hence, the writ petition is allowed, and the award under challenge is set aside. The matter is remanded to the Industrial Tribunal, for fresh consideration and disposal. It shall be open to the parties to adduce oral and documentary evidence, in support of their respective cases, if they are so advised. The Tribunal shall endeavour to dispose of the matter, as early as possible, and not later than three months, from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. There shall be no order as to costs. _________________ 5th August 2008 PAN