THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM WRIT PETITION No.405 2003 ORDER: Heard Sri P.Nageswara Sree, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri G.Vidyasagar, learned counsel for the second respondent- workman. This is a writ of certiorari seeking quashing of the award of the Labour Court- II, Hyderabad, dated 30.07.2002 in I.D.No.115 of 1998. The second respondent herein was admittedly appointed on a regular basis as a Chief Assembler in the writ petition company on 04.07.1994. Alleging oral termination from service, by dissuading him from attending the duty from 11.05.1998 onwards, the petitioner applied to the Labour Court under Section 2-A(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short ‘the Act’) seeking reinstatement into duty with all consequential and incidental benefits. By the award impugned in this writ petition, the Labour Court allowed the second respondent’s application and directed his reinstatement with all attendant benefits and backwages. The Labour Court framed two issues (i) whether the second respondent herein (petitioner before the Labour Court) was guilty of any misconduct as alleged by the writ petitioner in its counter-affidavit before the Labour Court; and (ii) whether the writ petitioner company was justified in terminating the services of the second respondent herein without conducting a domestic enquiry. For concluding that the writ petitioner had terminated the services of the second respondent-workman herein with effect from 11.05.1998 by dissuading him from attending office, the Labour Court relied on the testimony of the second respondent-workman; the legal notice dated 15.05.1998 (Ex.W.4) issued by the workman to the Vice President of the writ petitioner company; the explanation submitted by the workman to the letter dated 18.05.1998 of the Management (Ex.W.6); the letter addressed to the Assistant Commissioner of Labour (Ex.W.8) complaining of denial of salary to the workman though other employees were paid their monthly pay; and the complaint addressed by the workman to the Assistant Commissioner of Labour (Ex.W.9). The Labour Court did not place any credence rightly on the defence of the company suggesting without pleading in the counter-affidavit that the workman was engaged during the currency of his employment with the company in other contracts and had started his own enterprise and was habitually absent. Since the second respondent workman’s services were terminated without conducting a domestic enquiry, the Labour Court rightly found that the termination violated the provisions of the Act and passed an award in his favour directing his reinstatement with backwages and other attendant benefits. This Court discerns no error either in the application of law, the appreciation of the evidence and material on record or the exercise of the discretion by the Labour Court, warranting interference by way of certiorari, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The Writ Petition is without merit and is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. ______________________________ JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM Date: 27.01.2011 va