THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. RAMULU WRIT PETITION No.3584 OF 1998 DATED: 19.01.2010 Between: The Management of Hindustan Fluorocarbon Limited, Hyderabad, rep. by its Dy.Manager (P&A). .. Petitioner And Labour Court-II, Hyderabad, Rep. by its Presiding Officer and another. .. Respondents ORDER: This writ petition is filed questioning the award dated 27.11.1997 passed in I.D.No.40 of 1995 on the file of the Labour Court-II, Hyderabad. Brief facts of the case are that the 2nd respondent-workman, while working as Plant Operator under the petitioner management, having been appointed as such on 02.12.1987, was removed from service with effect from 22.03.1995, on the ground of absenteeism. Alleging that no enquiry whatsoever was conducted into the allegations leveled against him and that he was removed from service illegally, without considering the explanation submitted by him to the charge sheet and without following the procedure as contemplated under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short ‘the Act’), the 2nd respondent-workman raised a dispute in I.D.No.40 of 1995, under Section 2-A (2) of the Act, before the Labour Court-II, Hyderabad. The petitioner-management filed counter before the Labour Court, denying the claim of the workman, stating that the workman, in his explanation to the charge sheet, admitted his absence for the period alleged and hence no enquiry need be conducted and the punishment imposed was proper. The Labour Court, after detailed consideration of the matter, held that the petitioner was removed from service without conducting enquiry and hence the removal is illegal and, therefore, allowed the petition of the workman partly, by the impugned award dated 27.11.1997, directing the management to reinstate the workman into service with continuity of service and with 50% of backwages. Aggrieved by the same, the management preferred the present writ petition. Heard the learned counsel on record and perused the impugned award and other material made available on record. A perusal of the record would disclose that the workman himself admitted his absence for the alleged period, before the Labour Court. However, the fact remains that no enquiry whatsoever was conducted by the management before imposing the punishment of removal. Hence, ordering reinstatement of the workman into service with continuity of service cannot be found fault with. However, so far as awarding 50% of backwages is concerned, I am of the opinion that the 2nd respondent, who is a habitual absentee, does not deserve the said benefit and the impugned award, thus, requires to be set aside to that extent. Accordingly, the impugned award dated 27.11.1997 passed in I.D.No.40 of 1995 on the file of the Labour Court-II, Hyderabad, is set aside only to the extent of awarding 50% of backwages to the 2nd respondent-workman, and the rest of the award stands confirmed. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of. No order as to costs. _________________ JUSTICE C.V. RAMULU 19th January, 2010. IBL