IN THE HIGH COURT JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD FRIDAY, THE THIRTIEH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH W.P. No.21888 of 2001 Between: R.Syam Sunder … Petitioner and The Hon’ble Industrial Tribunal-cum- Labour Court, Godavarikhani, Represented by its Presiding Officer and another. … Respondents THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH W.P. No.21888 of 2001 ORDER: This writ petition has been filed aggrieved by the award dated 19.07.2001 passed in I.D. No.52 of 2000 by the Chairman, Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Godavarikhani. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner is the workman and the 2nd respondent is the Management, Singareni Collieries Company Limited. The workman was appointed as Badli Filler at 7/&A incline of the Management company in the year 1974. Subsequently, he was transferred to the Medical department, Area Hospital, Godavarikhani in the year 1977. Since then the workman has been entrusted with the duties of clerical grade-III. It is submitted that the workman duties were specifically and purely clerical in nature and his duties were to issue out patient slips and to make entry in the registers. The workman was working at Kakatiya Dispensary wherein the Medical Officer was in-charge of all the matter relating to the dispensary. While the matter stood thus, the workman was issued with charge sheet dated 27.07.1998 with the following charges: “i. Not sending the unfits to concerned mines knowingly. ii. Keeping the Hospital Records at residence without permission from Superiors. iii. Not maintaining the triplicate copy in the unfit book and fit books. iv. several workers declared unfit at Kakatiyanagar Dispensary without advise of the concerned Doctor. The above said acts of your amounts to misconduct under company standing orders No.25.1, 25.3 & 25.5.” The workman submitted detailed explanation to the said charges on 02.08.1998 denying the charges leveled against him. However, the Management respondent without considering the facts and circumstances, appointed an Enquiry Officer to conduct enquiry into the charges. The Enquiry Officer conducted the enquiry in gross violation of principles of natural justice. The Enquiry Officer did not give any opportunity to the workman to cross-examine the management witnesses during the course of enquiry. The Enquiry Officer did not consider any of the evidence put forth by the workman and he acted in biased manner and made the workman guilty of the charges in his enquiry report dated 09.09.1998. Based on the said enquiry report, the 2nd respondent Management dismissed the workman from service vide Proceedings dated 06.01.1999. The said dismissal order was completely illegal and based on no merits. Aggrieved by the said dismissal order, the workman raised industrial dispute and filed a petition under Section 2-A(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 in I.D. No.52 of 2000 on the file of the 1st respondent, Tribunal. The learned Tribunal dismissed the said I.D and confirmed the order of dismissal. The learned counsel for the petitioner, workman, would submit that the impugned award is illegal, arbitrary and unjust as the same was passed without giving any reasons for declining the claim of the workman. He further submitted that the learned Tribunal except describing the documents that have been filed by the management nothing has been recorded in the award and the award is vague. Further, the learned Tribunal failed to exercise the power vested under Section 11-A of the Act and did not consider the contention of the workman that the enquiry conducted by the disciplinary authority is in gross violation of principles of natural justice. Therefore, eventually he submitted that the impugned award is vague and liable to be set aside. On behalf of the respondent Management, besides reiterating the charged allegations leveled against the workman, inter alia, submitted that the charges leveled against the workman stand proved on account of the abundance of the evidence available on record and the same have been proved by giving full and fair opportunity to the workman at each and every stage of the case. Further, it is also submitted that the principles of natural justice have been satisfied and as per the own admission of the workman, he has disobeyed the instructions of his superiors, there is no ground as brought out by the workman for interfering with the order of the punishment passed by the disciplinary authority. Hence, no interference of this Court with the impugned award is required under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Heard the learned counsel and perused the material on record. The only point that arises for consideration is whether the impugned award is justified? It is not in dispute that the workman is an employee of the 2nd respondent management and he was dismissed from service on the allegation of misconduct and the learned Tribunal confirmed the said dismissal. Questioning the same, the workman filed the present writ petition on the ground that the learned Tribunal passed the impugned award without proper appreciation of the evidence on record and without giving any reason thereof. As could be seen from the award, it is evident that on behalf of the Management Exs.M-1 to M-11 were got marked. The learned Tribunal except describing what is document, no appraisal and no reasons have been assigned of it. Further, no finding was given on the aspect of domestic enquiry and no reasons have been given as to why the workman is not entitled to the relief as sought for by him in the said I.D., and no reasons have been assigned with regard to proportionality of the punishment imposed by the management against him with reference to the charges leveled against him. Just the award is appearing as stereo type. Section 11-A of the Act clearly defines that “where an industrial dispute relating to the discharge or dismissal of a workman has been referred to a Labour Court, Tribunal or national Tribunal for adjudication and, in the course of the adjudication proceedings, the Labour Court, Tribunal or National Tribunal, as the case may be, is satisfied that the order of discharge or dismissal was not justified, it may, by its award, set aside the order of discharge or dismissal and direct re-instatement of the workman on such terms and conditions, if any, as it thinks fit, or give such other relief of the workman including the award of any lesser punishment in lieu of discharge or dismissal as the circumstances of the case may require.” In the instant case, what are the reasons for satisfaction of the learned Tribunal in confirming the order of dismissal passed by the management against the workman are not mentioned. There is no discussion at all. Therefore, it can be said that it is not a reasoned order. However, both the learned counsel submitted that in the interest of justice, the matter may be remitted to the learned Tribunal for fresh adjudication after giving an opportunity to both the parties. In view of the above, having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and the submissions made by the learned counsel, the impugned award is set aside and the matter is remitted to the learned Tribunal for fresh adjudication, duly giving an opportunity to both the parties. Further, the learned Tribunal is directed to pass appropriate award, in accordance with law, within a period of six months, from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. In the result, this writ petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. ________________________ JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH Date: 30.09.2011 LSK