IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE THIRD DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION NO : 6783 of 2002 Between: 1 The Dy. Chief Traffic Manager, A.P.S.R.T.C. Warangal District. 2 The Regionjal Manager, A.P.S.R.T.C. Warangal. ..... PETITIONERS AND 1 P.Samath, E. 82741, Rep. by its Secretary, APSRTC Staff and Workers Federation, Narsampet Depot, Warangal District. 2 The Indl.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Warangal. ....RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to call for the records relating to the award i n I.D.No. 136/99 dt: 17-9-2001on the file of the Labour Court, Warangal, Warangal District and quash the same as arbitrary, by way of issuance of Writ of Certiorari or any other apropriate Writ order or orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the Circumstances of the case. Counsel for the Petitioner: V.T.M. PRASAD Counsel for the Respondent No.1: GP FOR LABOUR Counsel for the Respondent No.2: MR.I.LAXMIKANTHA RAO The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION No.6783 of 2002 ORDER: Aggrieved by the award of the Industrial Tribunal-Labour Court, Warangal, in I.D.No.136 of 1999 dated 17.9.2001, the present writ petition is filed. On a dispute being referred by the Government under Section 10(1)(d) of the Industrial Disputes Act as to whether the petitioner was justified in ordering that the 1st respondent be appointed as fresh conductor, the Tribunal held that the domestic enquiry was vitiated. Thereafter, in exercise of its powers under Section 11-A of the Industrial Disputes Act, the Tribunal reappreciated the evidence on record and held that the 1st respondent was entitled for continuity of service, back wages and attendant benefits. The petitioner, in its counter filed before the Tribunal had specifically pleaded that, if for any reason the enquiry was found by the Labour Court to be improper, they may be permitted to adduce evidence before the Court. It is well settled that once the Tribunal holds that the enquiry is vitiated for violation of principles of natural justice, then, if the employer so requires by way of a specific plea taken in its counter before the Tribunal/Labour Court, it should be permitted to adduce evidence afresh and, on the basis of the evidence so adduced, the Tribunal/Labour Court is required to exercise its jurisdiction under Section 11-A to reappreciate the evidence on record and to determine whether the punishment is commensurate with the misconduct held established. In the present case, the petitioner herein had specifically requested the Tribunal to permit it to adduce evidence in case the Court found the enquiry to be vitiated. Without permitting the petitioner herein to adduce evidence, the Tribunal has exercised its jurisdiction under Section 11-A and has awarded back wages and continuity of service to the 1st respondent – workman. The award of the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Warangal is accordingly set aside and the matter is remanded back to the Labour Court which shall permit the petitioner herein to adduce evidence and the 1st respondent workman to adduce evidence to the contra and, thereafter, exercise its powers under Section 11-A of the Industrial Disputes Act both with regards reappreciation of the evidence on record and the quantum of punishment. The Tribunal shall, thereafter, pass an award in accordance with law. Since the dispute relates to the year 1999, and more than 9 years have elapsed, it is but appropriate that the matter be decided expeditiously, in any event not later than six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The writ petition is, accordingly, allowed. However, in the circumstances, without costs. _______________ 3-7-2008 asp