THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO.11732 OF 2006 DATED 6th DECEMBER, 2010 BETWEEN T.Prem Kumar … Petitioner And The Hon’ble Industrial Tribunal- Cum-Labour Court, rep. by its Presiding Officer, Godavari Khani, Karimnagar District and Others. … Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO.11732 OF 2006 O R D E R The petitioner, a Junior Assistant in the service of the Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation (APSRTC), was removed from service under proceeding dated 24.09.2001 in connection with his unauthorized absence in four separate spells in the year 2000. His appeal and review having met with failure, the petitioner invoked the jurisdiction of the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Godavarikhani, in I.D.No.54 of 2004. By Award dated 05.12.2005, the Labour Court confirmed the petitioner’s removal from service and dismissed the I.D. Hence, this writ petition. Sri P.Sridhar Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the approach of the Labour Court in dealing with the matter was erroneous in law. He submitted that his client had specifically alleged in his claim petition that the enquiry held against him was not proper. In spite of the same, the Labour Court failed to render a finding as to the validity of the domestic enquiry before adjudicating the matter on merits. He therefore submitted that the Award under challenge was unsustainable owing to this lapse on the part of the Labour Court. I n THE COOPER ENGINEERING LIMITED V/s. P.P.MUNDHE[1], the Supreme Court observed that when a case of ‘dismissal’ or ‘discharge’ of an employee is referred to an industrial adjudication, the Labour Court should first decide as a preliminary issue whether the domestic enquiry has violated the principles of natural justice. The Court opined that when there was no domestic enquiry or the enquiry was admitted by the employer to be defective, there would be no difficulty. But, when the matter was in controversy between the parties that question must be decided as a preliminary issue. Only upon the decision being pronounced on this issue, it would be for the management to decide whether it would adduce any evidence before the Labour Court. In the present case, the Award under challenge reflects that the Labour Court extracted the petitioner’s challenge to the validity of the domestic enquiry but did not choose to render a finding on this issue. The Labour Court merely recorded the sequence of events as put forth by the APSRTC without going into the aspect as to whether the domestic enquiry stood vitiated for want of adherence to the principles of natural justice. The specific contention of the petitioner that the final enquiry notice dated 19.12.2000 was received by him only on 27.12.2000, the date of the enquiry, was not considered at all. The adjudication of the dispute on merits without first settling this preliminary issue therefore renders the Award under challenge unsustainable in law. It is accordingly set aside. The matter is remitted to the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Godavarikhani, for framing of a preliminary issue as to the validity of the domestic enquiry and for a decision thereon. Depending upon the finding of the Labour Court on this preliminary issue, necessary steps would have to be taken thereafter. Given the delay which was occasioned by the pendency of the writ petition on the file of this Court, the Labour Court is directed to dispose of the matter within six (6) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The Writ Petition is accordingly allowed. There shall be no order as to costs. -------------------------- SANJAY KUMAR,J 6TH DECEMBER, 2010 PGS/VGSR THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO.11732 OF 2006 6th DECEMBER, 2010 [1] AIR 1975 SC 1900