THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY Writ Petition No.27096 of 2010 ORDER: The petitioner was appointed, as Driver, in the Mahabubnagar Depot of A.P.S.R.T.C., in the year 1985. He applied for leave, for a period of one year, from 15.04.2003 to 14.04.2004. The same was sanctioned. Before expiry of the leave, he submitted an application to extend the same, by one more year. The leave was extended by one year, up to 14.04.2005. The petitioner submitted another application for extension of leave, for some more period. The request, however, was rejected. He was required to report to duty on 13.05.2005. Alleging that the petitioner did not report to duty, the 2nd respondent issued a charge memo. The petitioner states that he did not receive any charge memo. Ex parte enquiry was conducted and the 2nd respondent removed the petitioner from service, through order, dated 15.12.2005. After exhausting the departmental remedies, the petitioner filed I.D.No.49 of 2007 before the Labour Court-III, Hyderabad. The Labour Court passed an award, dated 07.01.2010, dismissing the I.D. Hence, this Writ Petition. Sri B.G.Ravindra Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that the Labour Court did not take into account, the fact that the departmental enquiry was ex parte in nature, and even otherwise, it did not exercise the jurisdiction conferred upon it under Section 11-A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short ‘the Act’). Sri C.Sunil Kumar Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for the 2nd respondent, on the other hand, submits that the petitioner remained unauthorizedly absent for quite a long time and he did not submit explanation to the charge memo. He contends that the Labour Court assigned cogent reasons, while dismissing the I.D., and that there are no merits in the writ petition. The petitioner was sanctioned leave for two years, in two spells. The request made by him for extension of the leave was not acceded to. The petitioner states that he did not receive any communication rejecting his request. So is the case with the charge sheet, said to have been issued by the 2nd respondent. A n ex parte enquiry was conducted and an order of removal was passed. In the I.D.No.49 of 2007, the Labour Court did not bestow its attention to the fact that the departmental enquiry was ex parte in nature. The plea of the petitioner, that he did not receive the charge sheet, or notice of enquiry, ought to have been considered. The jurisdiction conferred upon the Labour Court to examine the purport and validity of the domestic enquiry, has its own significance. Irrespective of the reasons, for an enquiry to be conducted ex parte, heavy obligation rests upon it, to examine the feasibility of requiring the management to lead evidence, almost in every case where the domestic enquiry was ex parte in nature, unless it is established beyond any reasonable doubt that the employee received notices, but failed to respond to them. In the instant case, there was a clear failure on the part of the Labour Court, on this aspect. It proceeded on mere assumptions. Assuming that the domestic enquiry was valid, the Labour Court did not make any attempt to exercise its jurisdiction under Section 11- A of the Act. The language of that provision would suggest that, even if the punishment imposed against an employee is found to be justified, the Labour Court can substitute the same with the one, comparatively less serious in nature. There is nothing in the award, which would suggest that such an exercise was undertaken. In view of the observations made above, the matter should go before the Labour Court in the ordinary course. However, having regard to the fact that the petitioner was out of service, for almost half a decade, it is felt that an exercise akin to the one under Section 11-A of the Act, can be undertaken by this Court itself. It is felt that, setting aside the order of removal, and denial of benefit of service from the date of removal, till the date of reinstatement and denial of back wages, would meet the ends of justice. Hence, the Writ Petition is allowed. The order of removal passed against the petitioner is set aside and the 2nd respondent shall reinstate the petitioner into service, subject to the condition that, a) the petitioner shall not be entitled for any benefit whatever for the period between the date of removal from service and the date of reinstatement; b) the past service rendered by the petitioner up to the date of removal shall be taken into account, for the purpose of determining the retirement benefits; and c) the pay scale of the petitioner shall be decided by taking into account the last pay drawn by him, before removal. There shall be no order as costs. _____________________ L. NARASIMHA REDDY, J. Dt.09.11.2010. Note: Furnish C.C. in one week. (B/o) GJ