HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN W.P.NO. 7360 of 2001 Date: 17-02-2011 Between: G. Hanmandlu …… petitioner and Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Godavarikhani, karimanagar District rep. by its chairman and another …… Respondents HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN W.P.NO. 7360 of 2001 ORDER: The award of the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Godavarikhani in I.D.No.142 of 1996 dated 14-07-2000 is under challenge in this writ petition by the petitioner-workman. The petitioner joined the services of the second respondent-corporation as a Conductor on 04-04-1998. He was issued a charge memo on 22-03-1995 alleging that he had absented from duty from 03-03-1995 to 22-03-1995 i.e., for a period of twenty days. It is his case before this Court that his son aged two years was suffering from heart ailment; he had, therefore, taken him to hospital frequently; his son underwent treatment in Nizams Institute of Medical Sciences (NIMS); and in such circumstances, since he was mentally perturbed due to the serious ailment of his son, he neither attended duty nor sought prior permission for availment of leave. It is the petitioner’s case that he did not receive intimation of an enquiry being held and, therefore, did not participate in the enquiry without considering which the second respondent-corporation had passed the order of removal on 30-09-1995. His appeal and review petition were dismissed on 27-01-1996 and 18- 04-1996 respectively. The Industrial Tribunal did not examine the validity of the domestic enquiry but straightaway exercised jurisdiction under Section 11(A) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short ‘Act’) to reappreciate the evidence on record. Considering the fact that the petitioner had admitted being absent for twenty days, the Tribunal held that the punishment of removal from service was not proportionate to the charge proved. The Tribunal directed reinstatement of the petitioner without back wages and without continuity of service holding that denial of back wages and continuity of service was sufficient punishment. In the case on hand, it is the case of the petitioner that he did not receive a copy of the notice and as such could not participate in the departmental enquiry; and the order of punishment imposed on him by his employer was in violation of the principles of natural justice. The Tribunal ought to have examined the validity of the domestic enquiry as a preliminary issue and only if it was satisfied that the enquiry as held was valid, and was not in violation of principles of natural justice, could it have proceeded to exercise jurisdiction under Section 11(A) of the Act to reappreciate the evidence on record and to examine the quantum of punishment. Even in case the domestic enquiry is held to be illegal, if the employer has sought an opportunity to adduce evidence afresh, the Tribunal is required to permit both parties to adduce evidence before exercising jurisdiction under Section 11(A) of the Act. In the case on hand, the Tribunal has straightaway exercised jurisdiction under Section 11(A) of the Act without examining the validity of the domestic enquiry. The impugned award must, therefore, be quashed. The matter is remitted back to the Tribunal for its consideration afresh both on the question of validity of the domestic enquiry and, thereafter, for exercise of jurisdiction under Section 11(A) of the Act. The entire exercise in this regard, culminating in an award being passed, shall be completed by the Tribunal within a period of four months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Sri A.K. Jayaprakash Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner, would state that the petitioner has since been reinstated into service, and the Corporation could misconstrue the award being quashed as revival of the earlier order of removal. I consider it appropriate, therefore, to direct status quo as on today to be maintained till the award is passed afresh by the Tribunal. The writ petition is disposed of accordingly. However, in the circumstances, without costs. _______________________ RAMESH RANGANATHAN, J Date: 17-02-2011 YCR