IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE THIRTEENTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU WRIT PETITION NO : 15062 of 1999 Between: 1 The Union of India, Rep. by its Secretary, Ministry of Defence (Navy) New Delhi. 2 The Flag Officer Commanding-in-Chief, Ester Naval command, Naval Base, Visakhapatnam, 3 The General Manager, Naval Armament Depot, Visakhapatnam. ..... PETITIONER(S) AND 1 The Industrial Tribunal cum Labour Court, Visakhaptnam 2 Laki Gopal Patrudu, S/o Seetharam Patrudu, Visakhapatnam. R/o Seven Hills, No.45-50-20, Abidnagar, Visakhapatnam. .....RESPONDENT(S) Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to to issue Writ Order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of 'Certiorari' calling for the records relating to the I.T.I.D.No.10/96 (c) dt. 27.7.1998 on the file of 1st respondent and setaside the same by holding it as unjust, contrary to the Rules and pass such other order or orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.M.RATNA REDDY Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR LABOUR The Court made the following : THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU W.P.No.15062 of 1999 ORDER: This writ petition is filed questioning the award made in I.T.I.D.No.10 of 1996 (C) dated 27.7.1998 on the file of the Industrial Tribunal-cum- Labour Court, Visakhapatnam. Petitioners are the management and second respondent is the workman. It appears, respondent-workman joined the service of petitioner-management as unskilled labour with effect from 10.12.1980. He worked as General Mazdoor at Naval Armament Depot, which is under the control of Government of India and the Flag Officer. He was appointed against a vacancy reserved for Scheduled Tribe on the strength of a Community Certificate and his services were regularized in the said cadre. While that being so, in the year 1987, on a complaint made by Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes Union, Management has verified as to the genuineness of the Caste Certificate produced by the workman with the Revenue authorities. It seems, the Revenue Authorities have sent some adverse remarks and on that basis, the management has conducted an enquiry and held the charge against workman as proved and therefore, passed an order removing him from service. Aggrieved by the same, a petition under Section 2-A(2) of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 before the Labour Court was filed contending that no notice of any kind was issued to him before passing the impugned order. It appears, in spite of service of notice, management did not appear before the Labour Court nor filed any rejoinder. Therefore, the Labour Court passed an award on merits in favour of workman granting relief of reinstatement with continuity of service, but without any back wages and attendant benefits. Aggrieved by the same, the present writ petition is filed. The learned counsel appearing for petitioner-management strenuously contended that the workman obtained employment by producing a false community certificate. In fact, on verification, the revenue authorities have confirmed that the community ‘BAGATI’ which was noted in the certificate as Scheduled Tribe was false as the same was not included in the list of Scheduled Tribe and the seal affixed on the certificate was verified from the Photostat copy of the certificate submitted by the workman and also the seal of their office. Only after receipt of report by the revenue authorities, a charge was framed against the workman in accordance with CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 and a departmental inquiry was conducted duly following the principles of natural justice. The Enquiry Officer submitted his report giving a specific finding that the workman was guilty of the charge and the same was proved against him. The disciplinary authority having satisfied with the findings of the Enquiry Officer, issued orders dated 22.3.1993 removing the workman from service. Against the said removal order, the workman preferred appeal on 19.4.1993, but the appellate authority rejected the same as devoid of merits. Thereafter, a revision was also preferred before the Chief of Naval and the same was also rejected on 12.7.1995. Ultimately, workman raised a dispute under Section 2-A(2) of the I.D. Act before the Labour Court. Unfortunately, the Labour Court passed award in favour of workman, without the participation of the management. The learned counsel for respondent-workman strenuously contended that though notices were served on petitioner-management, there was no representation on behalf of management on all the days when the case was called. Under those circumstances, there was no other option for the Labour Court except to pass the award on merits. Even otherwise, the Labour Court denied back wages and attendant benefits to the workman. Therefore, the award passed by the Labour Court cannot be said to be either arbitrary or illegal and the same is just and valid. Apart from this, the learned counsel further submitted that the caste certificate cannot be said to be either bogus or invalid, unless and until competent authority conducts an enquiry into the same as contemplated under Andhra Pradesh (S.C., S.T. & B.Cs) Regulation of Issue of Community Certificates Act, 1993. But, no such efforts have been made by the management. Therefore, the award passed by the Labour Court cannot be said to be either arbitrary or illegal. I have given my earnest consideration to the respective submissions made by the learned counsel on either side and perused the impugned award and other material made available on record. At the outset, I am of the opinion that the petitioner-management has not conducted the case in a manner as required under law. The record and the docket order passed by the Labour Court would indicate that the matter was adjourned from time to time for want of counter and the presence of counsel for the management. The petitioner-management was served notice and thereafter the matter was adjourned to 23.10.1996 for counter. Again, the matter was adjourned to 6.11.1996, 18.12.1996, 11.6.1997, 5.11.1997, 31.12.1997, 6.6.1998 and 29.6.1998 and ultimately after hearing the arguments, the matter was reserved on 13.7.1998 and award was passed on 27.7.1998. Though the matter underwent several adjournments, none appeared on behalf of management nor there was any representation nor any rejoinder was filed. Under those circumstances, I am of the opinion that the Labour Court rightly came to the conclusion that removal of workman was arbitrary and illegal, and therefore directed reinstatement with continuity of service, but without any back wages and without attendant benefits. Further, it is interesting to notice that this is a dispute as to the validity of caste certificate obtained by workman. May be, the caste certificate obtained by the workman was sent for verification to the revenue authorities and they have made some adverse remarks stating that the same is a bogus one, but in a case of this nature, it is always open for the authorities under Andhra Pradesh (Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Backward Classes) Regulation of Issue of Community Certificates Act, 1993 to conduct a detailed enquiry and to hold the certificate obtained by the workman either as invalid or cancelled. In this case, it appears that no such enquiry was conducted for holding the certificate as invalid or cancelled. The only enquiry conducted by the petitioner-management seems to be on the basis of report sent by the revenue authorities behind the back of the workman. The workman was never served with any notice by the revenue authorities before sending report to the management. Further, though sufficient opportunity was given by the Labour Court, management went in default. No case is made out to interfere with the Award, on the ground of some slackness on the part of the counsel for the management. It would not be proper to remand the matter for reconsideration. Now almost 10 years since the award was passed. Strictly speaking, the management could not have dispensed with the services of the workman on the basis of report of the Revenue authorities. It is for the Revenue authorities under the Act to conduct a detailed enquiry, which was not done. Therefore, looking from any angle, the award passed by the Labour Court cannot be said to be either arbitrary or illegal and the Labour Court has not committed any legal infirmity calling for interference of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The writ petition is devoid of merits and liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. The Management shall reinstate the respondent-workman forthwith with all monetary benefits that flow from the Award of the Labour Court. _____________ C.V.RAMULU, J Date: 13.6.2008 DA