HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU WRIT PETITION No.10078 of 2011 Date of Order:15.04.2011 Between: T.Butchi Babu ..Petitioner and The General Manager, BSNL and others ..Respondents The Court made the following Order: HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU WRIT PEITTION No.10078 of 2011 ORDER :- This writ petition is directed against the Award, dated 06.03.2009, passed by the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court at Hyderabad in I.D.No.22 of 2005, dated 17.03.2009, published in the Gazette Notification, as arbitrary and illegal and consequently declare that the petitioner is entitled to reinstatement with back wages with continuity of service. 2. The petitioner was appointed as part-time worker (Sweeper) with effect from June, 1994. While he was working as such, his services were terminated by the Management with effect from January, 2001. Aggrieved thereby, he raised an industrial dispute viz., I.D.No.22 of 2005 before the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court at Visakhapatnam and sought for reinstatement with back wages and continuation of service with all benefits. Later the Industrial Dispute was transferred to the Central Government Industrial Tribunal–cum-Labour Court at Hyderabad. When the Industrial Dispute was posted for petitioner’s ex parte evidence on 06.03.2009, neither the petitioner nor the respondents was present. Hence, both the parties called absent and the evidence was closed. Consequently, the termination orders of management have become final. Challenging the same, the present writ petition has been filed. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the advocate appearing for the petitioner before the Tribunal did not inform the date of hearing of the case to the petitioner, and therefore, the petitioner could not produce any evidence before the Tribunal and hence, he prays to give an opportunity to let in evidence. 4. On the other hand, Sri R.S.Murthy, learned counsel for the respondents contends that in spite of giving opportunity to the petitioner, he has not adduced any evidence, and therefore, there are no grounds to interfere with the impugned order. 5. As seen from the affidavit filed in support of the petition, it is clearly stated that the petitioner was not aware of the proceedings before the Tribunal on 06.03.2009. According to him, he engaged a counsel at Visakhapatnam and as the matter was coming on before the Industrial Tribunal at Hyderabad, the same counsel was looking after the case before the Tribunal at Hyderabad. It seems the counsel has not informed to the petitioner about the posting of the case for the evidence to be adduced on behalf of the petitioner. Even if there are some latches on the part of the counsel appearing for the petitioner before the Tribunal, the same cannot be attributed to the petitioner and the petitioner cannot be made to suffer for the latches, if any, committed by the counsel. It is not a case of wilful absence of petitioner when the case was called. Because of some communication gap between the counsel and the petitioner, the petitioner could not attend the Industrial Tribunal. Therefore, one more opportunity can be given to the petitioner, so that he can adduce all his evidence to substantiate his case. Hence, the impugned order is set aside directing the Tribunal to give one more opportunity to the petitioner to produce evidence on the date so fixed by it without giving any adjournments. 6. The Writ Petition is, accordingly, allowed. There shall be no order as to costs. ______________ K.C.BHANU, J April 15, 2011 lmv