S.B. C. Writ Petition No. 4868/1997. (Shubha Ram Vs. Judge, Labour Court) Date of Order: 08/04/2010. HON'BLE MR. MOHAMMAD RAFIQ,J. Mr Vinodilal Mathur, for the petitioner. Mr AK Bansal, for the respondent. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging the award of the Labour Court dated 7.1.94 by which the reference of the industrial dispute with regard to validity of his removal from service has been answered in the terms that there was no illegality therein. The learned counsel for the petitioner argued that despite specific case set up by the petitioner that there was no complaint about his previous conduct and the penalties awarded to him in the past and no finding thereof has been recorded by the enquiry officer, the disciplinary authority has penalized him by awarding extreme penalty of removal only because he has taken into consideration such previous penalties awarded to the petitioner. The learned counsel in support of his arguments cited the judgment of the Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in State of Mysore Vs. K. Manche Gowda, 1964 Supreme Court Reports 540 and judgment of this Court in Phool Chand Vs. State of Raj. & ors., WLN (UC) 1980 Pg. 311. The learned counsel submitted that the Labour Court was also influenced by this factor which is evident from the observations made by it in Para 9 of the award and the argument to the above effect made by the petitioner has not at all been considered and dealt with. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the charge against the petitioner was quite serious that he was having seven and half passengers without tickets when the Flying Squad checked the bus and in the past also, he was awarded several penalties for similar delinquencies. Upon hearing the learned counsel for the parties and perusing the record, I find that petitioner has set up a specific plea in Para 9 of the statements of claim which has not been controverted by the respondent in their reply. Even if the judgments which have been cited before this Court by the learned counsel for the petitioner were not cited before the Labour Court, even then this plea was specifically raised by the petitioner and the same has been considered by the Labour Court in Para 9 of its award. Yet, the fact remains that the petitioner was seriously prejudiced by reason of the fact that he did not have adequate opportunity to defend himself on this aspect of the matter because it did not form part of the charge and what effect it would have, has not been dealt with by the Labour Court. In the circumstances, the matter requires reconsideration at the end of the Labour Court. Thus, the impugned award dated 7.1.94 is set aside and the matter is remanded back to the Labour Court-cum-Tribunal with the observations that since it revives the proceedings and reference case of 1988, the Tribunal should give priority to this matter over any other matter which may have come to it by way of reference subsequent thereto. This writ petition is accordingly allowed. (MOHAMMAD RAFIQ),J. Gandhi/-P.A. Item no. 16