THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION NO. 167 OF 1999 DATE: 21-1-2008 Between: A.P.S.R.T.C. rep. by Its Depot Manager, Siddipet …. Petitioner And 1. K.Anji Reddy and another ….. Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION NO. 167 OF 1999 ORDER: It is unfortunate that the Labour Court-II, Hyderabad, despite repeated pronouncements of this Court and that of the Supreme Court, did not exercise the jurisdiction vested in it under Section 11-A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Under Section 11-A, the Labour Court has the power to re- appreciate the evidence on record to come to a conclusion different from that of the enquiry officer and the question whether the charges leveled against the charged employee are established or not. Even in case where the charges are held established, the Labour Court has the power to interfere with the quantum of punishment. However, such interference cannot be as a matter of course or as a misplaced sympathy. In the present case, the Labour Court has not even recorded its finding as to whether the 13 charges leveled against the 1st respondent are established or not. It has straight away come to the proportionality of the punishment and interfered with the punishment of removal imposed by the employer and directed reinstatement of the 1st respondent in service with all attendant benefits such as continuity of service etc., but without back wages. The charges held established against the 1st respondent in the departmental enquiry are grave and serious in nature. If indeed, the charges are found to have been established, by the Labour Court, on a re-appreciation of evidence, the punishment as imposed would certainly be a punishment which would shock the conscience of this Court and it would indeed be a misplaced sympathy. However, the first question to be examined is as to whether the charges have been established or not and since the Labour Court has not addressed itself to this question, the award is liable to be set aside and the matter be remanded back to the Labour Court for its consideration afresh under Section 11-A of the Industrial Disputes Act both with regards the question as to whether the charges are established or not and on the quantum of punishment to be imposed, in case it comes to the conclusion that the charges are established. Sri B.G.Umadevi, Learned Standing Counsel for the petitioner, would submit that the 1st respondent was reinstated into service subject to the result of the writ petition on 2.3.1998. I consider it appropriate, therefore, to direct the petitioner to continue the 1st respondent in service till the matter is adjudicated afresh by the Labour Court. Since the dispute relates to the year 1994 and nearly more than 13 years elapsed since then, I consider it appropriate that the Labour Court-II, Hyderabad decides the matter as expeditiously as possible, in any event, not later than four months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of. No order as to costs. ___________ 21-1-2008 asp