THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU WRIT PETITION Nos.1689 and 13342 of 2003 COMMON ORDER: In both these writ petitions, the issue that arises for consideration is similar; therefore, they are being disposed of by this common order. For the purpose of convenience, the parties would be referred to as arrayed in W.P.No.1689 of 2003. Petitioner is the management and 1st respondent is the workman. It appears, the 1st respondent joined the services of Singareni Collieries Company Limited (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Company’), Godavarikhani, Karimnagar District, as Coal Filler in the year 1978 and subsequently his services were confirmed in General Mazdoor Category-I. While so, the workman made a representation/complaint dated 15.02.2000 to the Chairman and Managing Director of the Company, making certain accusations/allegations against two officers of the company. Thereupon, the workman was issued with a charge sheet dated 09.11.2000 alleging that he failed to produce any material to substantiate the allegations made against the officers and thus he has deliberately made those allegations without any basis, which constitutes serious misconduct under Company’s Standing Order 25.17, and was directed to submit his explanation as to why suitable disciplinary action should not be taken against him. The workman submitted his explanation to the charge sheet, however, having not satisfied with the explanation, a detailed enquiry was conducted. Ultimately, on the basis of the report submitted by the Enquiry Officer, who held the workman guilty of the charges leveled against him, and other material made available before it, the disciplinary authority removed the workman from service, by order dated 14.05.200. Aggrieved thereby, the workman raised a dispute under Section 2-A (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short ‘the I.D.Act’) in L.C.I.D.No.22 of 2001 before the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Hyderabad. It was the case of the workman before the Labour Court that the enquiry was not properly conducted and the action of the management was only an act of victimization and unfair labour practice, therefore, the punishment of dismissal from service is contrary to law and improper. It was the case of the management before the Labour Court that the allegations made by the petitioner against two Officers viz., Satyam and V.Gopala Rao are of serious in nature and they would have resulted in the said officers losing their jobs, that the enquiry was conducted properly and, as such, supported their action of dismissing the workman from service. Before the Labour Court, none were examined and no documents were marked on either side. On the basis of the material made available before it, the Labour Court passed the impugned award dated 31.07.2002, directing the management to appoint the workman on the minimum pay scale of general Mazdoor of service of Surface in Category-I, existing as on that date. Further, it was made clear that the workman was not entitled for any backwages, however his entire service from 1978 would be counted for terminal benefits and the period of dismissal till his reinstatement would be counted as extra ordinary leave without pay. Aggrieved thereby, the management filed W.P.No.1689 of 2003. Insofar as denial of continuity of service, backwages and other attendant benefits, the workman filed W.P.No.13342 of 2003. Learned counsel for the petitioner-management strenuously contended that had action been initiated against the officers on the basis of the false allegations made by the workman, it would have resulted in dismissal of those officers. Learned counsel further submitted that there is no necessity of examining the Officers against whom the workman made false allegations and that the workman, who is in the habit of making false allegations, does not deserve any sympathy. Per contra, learned counsel for the 1st respondent-workman contended that without examining the Officers against whom the allegations are made, the management ought not to have come to the conclusion that the workman is in the habit of making false allegations. It is further submitted that the management itself cannot take up the enquiry without there being any prejudice caused to any of the Officers concerned. I have given my earnest consideration to the submissions made by the learned counsel on either side and perused the impugned award and other material made available on record. A perusal of the impugned award discloses that one of the officers against whom allegations are made is retired in due course on attaining the age of superannuation and the other officer is on the verge of retirement. It is an admitted fact that none of the officers against whom the allegations are said to have been made are examined. Without examining the officers, making the workman to suffer the departmental proceedings, on the ground that he failed to produce any evidence to substantiate the allegations made by him, is unjustified. It seems, the workman complained to the higher authority about some harassment meted out by him in the hands of the officers named in the complaint, during the course of employment, and the complaint does not relate to any event which occurred outside the employment, and thus it cannot be construed that the workman had any personal grudge against those officers and therefore deliberately made allegations against them. Considering the circumstances, the Labour Court in its wisdom rightly ordered reinstatement of the workman into service in the minimum pay scale and denied backwages and other benefits. Thus, I am not inclined to interfere with the reasoned award passed by the Labour Court, in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, and the writ petitions are devoid of merits and are liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, these writ petitions are dismissed. No order as to costs. _____________ C.V.RAMULU,J 10.02.2011 v v