IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD THURSDAY THE TWELVETH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE T. MEENA KUMARI AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT APPEAL No. 1722 OF 2005 AND WRIT PETITION No.16231 OF 2005 COMMON CAUSE TITLE Between: Nandji Singh, s/o Sri Arjun Singh, aged about 46 years, Plot No. 6, Opposite Native Church, Lenin Nagar Post Office, Vaishalinagar, Saroornagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy district. …. Appellant V/s. 1. M/s. Mishra Dhatu Nigam Limited, (A Govt.of India Enterprise), P.O. Kanchanbagh, Hyderabad-58, Represented by its General Manager (HR), Sri N.V.Ram Anand 2. The Presiding Officer, Labour Court-I, Hyderabad. …. Respondents Counsel for the Appellants: Dr.P.B. Vijaya Kumar Counsel for the Respondents: GOVT. PLEADER for Labour Ms. G. Sudha THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE T. MEENA KUMARI AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT APPEAL No. 1722 OF 2005 AND WRIT PETITION No.16231 OF 2005 COMMON JUDGMENT : (Per the Hon'ble Smt. Justice T.Meenakumari) This writ appeal and writ petition arises out of orders passed by the Labour Court-I, Hyderabad in I.D.No.22 of 2003 at different points of time. The order dated 27-3-2004 was passed by the Labour Court on the issue of validity of domestic inquiry held by Mishra Dhatu Nigam Limited against the employee, Nandji singh. This order is subjected to challenge by the employee in WP.No.16231 of 2005. After passing of this order, it appears that the employee filed an application, I.A.No. 276 of 2004 in ID.No.22 of 2002 seeking to place additional documents as evidence before the Labour Court. The said Interlocutory application was ordered by the Labour Court on 19-1-2005. Aggrieved thereby, M/s. Mishra Dhatu Nigam Limited approached this Court by way of WP.No.3665 of 2005. By order dated 14-6-2005, the learned single Judge of this Court allowed the said I.A., setting aside the order dated 19-1-2005 passed by the Labour Court in the said I.D. 2. Writ Appeal No.1722 of 2005 is filed by the employee, aggrieved by the order of the learned single Judge in WP.No.3665 of 2005. 3. Heard Dr.P.B. Vijaya Kumar, the learned counsel for the employee and Ms.G.Sudha, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.1 - M/s. Mishra Dhatu Nigam Limited (A Government of India Enterprise). 4. A reading of the order dated 27-3-2004 passed by the Labour Court would indicate that no specific finding was given by the Labour Court with regard to the validity of the domestic inquiry. The language used by the Labour Court in this regard clearly indicates that the order was passed on the ground of assumption and presumption. 5. The order dated 27-3-2004 passed by the Labour Court- I, Hyderabad, in I.A.No.276 of 2004 in I.D.No.22 of 2003, reads as hereunder: Perused the material available on record. The petitioner was dismissed from service by the respondent by an order dated 12-2-2002 on the ground that he produced false educational certificate at the time of his original appointment in this year 1983-84. To set aside the said order of dismissal and for reinstatement and other consequential benefits, he filed the petition on hand. The documents, which were filed in court, reveal that the charge sheet was issued to the petitioner and an explanation was received and that there was also enquiry conducted. After issuance of show cause notice, the petitioner was dismissed from service. It appears the respondent had followed the procedural aspect in conducting the enquiry and accordingly held the domestic enquiry as valid. Any questions of facts and law can be considered at the time of final arguments. Call on 16-4-2004. 6. The Labour Court did not render a specific finding with regard to the validity of domestic enquiry is not evident by the use of word “it appears that the respondent had followed procedural aspect”. This aspect is further compounded by the fact that the Labour Court had allowed I.A.No.276 of 2004 filed by the employee seeking to adduce additional evidence in the form of documents. If it was the opinion of the Labour Court that the domestic enquiry was valid, there would be no cause for either of the parties to adduce evidence thereafter. The confusion of the Labour Court has administered by the ambivalent language used in the order dated 27-3-2004 was further administered by the subsequent order in I.A.No. 276 of 2004. A reading of these orders reflect that the Labour Court did not approach the issue in proper perspective and failed to consider the aspect of validity of domestic enquiry correctly. Accordingly, the order dated 27- 3-2004 passed by the Labour Court, impugned in Writ Petition No. 16231 of 2005 is set aside and so also the order dated 19-1- 2005 passed by the Labour Court in I.A.No. 276 of 2004 in I.D.No.22 of 2003. The matter is remanded back to the Labour Court-I, Hyderabad, to consider the issue of validity of the domestic enquiry in the proper perspective and give a specific finding with regard thereto. The application filed by the employee in I.A.No. 276 of 2003 in I.D.No. 22 of 2003 would then have to be considered basing upon the finding of the Labour Court with regard to the validity of the domestic enquiry. The Labour Court shall consider and complete the exercise aforesaid within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. In view of the pendency of this matter since 2003, it is appropriate that the Labour Court takes up I.D.No.22 of 2003 itself for final disposal and pass orders thereupon on merits and in accordance with law as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of six months, after the disposal of the interlocutory application as aforesaid. 7. Accordingly, WA.No.1722 of 2005 and W.P.No. 16231 of 2005 are disposed of in terms of the above directions. In the circumstances, there shall be no order as to costs. __________________________ JUSTICE T. MEENA KUMARI _______________________ JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR 12-XI-2009. I s L THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE T. MEENA KUMARI AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT APPEAL No. 1 7 2 2 OF 2005 AND WRIT PETITION No.16231 OF 2005. Common Judgment of the Division Bench delivered by the Hon’ble Smt.Justice T.Meena Kumari. Circulation Entry No.75 Date: 12-11-2009 Computer No. 43 Court Master: I s L