IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE SEVENTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE MS JUSTICE G.ROHINI WRIT PETITION No. 20639 OF 1998 Between: The Depot Manager, APSRTC., Nirmal depot Nirmal, Adilabad District ..... PETITIONER AND L.Narahari and another .... RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioner: Counsel for the Respondents: The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE MS JUSTICE G.ROHINI WRIT PETITION No. 20639 OF 1998 O R D E R : The Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation (for short ‘Corporation’) filed this writ petition seeking a certiorari to call for the records relating to the award of the Industrial Tribunal cum Labour Court, Godavarikhani in I.D.No.81 of 1994, dated 12.06.1997 wherein reinstatement of the 1st respondent herein was ordered and to quash the same being arbitrary and illegal. The 1st respondent herein filed the said I.D.No.81 of 1994 under Section 2.A (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short ‘the Act’) to set aside the order of dismissal dated 27.05.1994 and for reinstatement with continuity of service, back wages and attendant benefits. On behalf of the Corporation a counter was filed denying the allegations made by the 1st respondent. No oral or documentary evidence was adduced on behalf of the workman/1st respondent whereas on behalf of the Corporation the order of removal dated 27.05.1994 was marked as Ex.M-1. The Labour Court held that except charges 7 to 9, there was no material sufficient to prove the other charges. Accordingly, the Tribunal below while setting aside the order of dismissal, directed reinstatement of the workman with continuity of service and attendant benefits and without any back wages. That apart, three increments were directed to be withheld by way of penalty. The said order is under challenge in this writ petition by the Corporation. Heard the learned counsel for both the parties and perused the material available on record. At the outset, it is to be noticed that the dismissal order dated 27.05.1994 was passed after conducting a detailed enquiry as provided under law and the validity of the said enquiry was not challenged by the workman/1st respondent and a memo was filed before the Labour Court to that effect. In the circumstances, the question that arises for consideration is whether it is open to the Tribunal below to re-appreciate the material available on record. In USHA BRECO MAZDOOR SANGH vs. MANAGEMENT OF USHA BRECO LIMITED AND ANOTHER[1], the Supreme Court held that where no fresh evidence was introduced by either side before the Labour Court and when it was concluded that domestic enquiry was conducted in accordance with principles of natural justice, it was not open to the Labour Court to interfere with the decision of the Management. In the instant case, admittedly no evidence was adduced by either of the parties before the Labour Court. In the absence of any fresh evidence by the parties and without assigning any reasons, I am of the opinion that the Tribunal below erred in interfering with the dismissal order. Hence, the impugned award is hereby set aside and the matter is remitted back to the Tribunal below for consideration afresh following due process of law. Accordingly, the Writ petition is allowed as prayed for. No costs. ____________ Date: 07.04.2010 G. ROHINI, J Ivd [1] (2008) 5 Supreme Court Cases 554