THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH W.P.NO.26083 OF 2003 O R D E R Aggrieved by the award dated 20.1.2003 passed by the Industrial Tribunal – cum – Labour Court, Warangal in I.D.No.40/2001 in confirming the order of removal passed by the respondent – Corporation against the petitioner, who was working as conductor prior to his removal, the present writ petition is filed. 2. The petitioner was working as conductor under the control of the respondent – Depot Manager, Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation, Bhadrachalam Depot, Khammam District and while when he was conducting the bus bearing No.5208 on the route Bhadrachalam to Venkatapuram on 11.1.2000, a check was exercised and certain cash and ticket irregularities were found and he was issued with a charge sheet and after conducting the domestic enquiry, orders of removal from service were issued. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner raised industrial dispute and by the impugned award, the punishment inflicted by the respondent – Corporation was confirmed and challenging the same, he filed the present writ petition. 3. The main grievance of the petitioner in the writ affidavit is that the Tribunal by not considering the validity of the domestic enquiry, though he has disputed the same, proceeded further and confirmed the order of removal. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner relying on the judgment of the Apex Court reported in COOPER ENGINEERING LTD. v. P.P.MUNDHE[1] submitted that the Tribunal shall first record a finding with regard to the validity of the domestic enquiry and then proceed further to consider the merits on record. For the same proposition he relied on an unreported judgment of the learned single Judge of this court in W.P.No.7989/2002 dated 25.2.2005 and contended that the learned single Judge by considering the judgment of the Apex Court referred to supra, remitted the matter back to the Tribunal for fresh adjudication. 4. On behalf of the respondent – Corporation, counter affidavit has been filed and it is stated inter alia that the domestic enquiry has been conducted after complying with the principles of natural justice and the Tribunal by considering the evidence on record, has rightly upheld the punishment imposed by the corporation and the same may not be interfered with. Further, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent – Corporation submitted that the Tribunal has framed an issue ‘whether the petitioner was given fair and reasonable opportunity during the domestic enquiry’ and accordingly the same was answered in the affirmative and hence the impugned order does not warrant any interference. 5. From the above, the only contention of the counsel for the petitioner is that the Tribunal has not considered the validity of the domestic enquiry and recorded any cogent and convincing reasons for upholding the validity of the domestic enquiry. 6. From a perusal of the impugned award it could be seen that the Tribunal framed the issue whether the petitioner was given fair and reasonable opportunity during the domestic enquiry and held that “the domestic enquiry file received from the respondent is perused. The petitioner participated in the enquiry. This Tribunal has no hesitation to hold that fair and reasonable opportunity was given to the petitioner during the domestic enquiry. The point No.1 is answered accordingly. “ 7. The petitioner at paragraph no.5 of the claim statement has categorically disputed the domestic enquiry and contended that the same is conducted in violated of the principles of natural justice. The Tribunal by not satisfying itself by recording any cogent and convincing reasons for upholding the validity of the domestic enquiry, in a cryptic manner, held that the petitioner was given fair and reasonable opportunity. For coming to the said conclusion, no reasons have been recorded and the case set up by the petitioner has not been answered. Therefore, it cannot be said the Tribunal has considered the validity of the domestic enquiry. The Apex Court in the decision reported in COOPER ENGINEERING LTD. v. P.P.MUNDHE (1 supra) held as under: “22. We are, therefore, clearly of opinion that when a case of dismissal or discharge of an employee is referred for industrial adjudication the Labour Court should first decide as a preliminary issue whether the domestic enquiry has violated the principles of natural justice. When there is no domestic enquiry or defective enquiry is admitted by the employer there will be no difficulty. But when the matter is in controversy between the parties the question must be decided as a preliminary issue. On that decision being pronounced it will be for the management to decide whether it will adduce any evidence before the Labour court. If it chooses not to adduce any evidence, it will not be thereafter permissible in any proceedings to raise the issue. . . . . . 8. From the above judgment of the Apex Court it is clear that the Tribunal shall first decide the validity of the domestic enquiry as a preliminary issue, to see whether the principles of natural justice has been violated in conducting the said enquiry. In the present case, at the cost of repetition, as per the averments of the petitioner, noted above, he categorically disputed the validity of the preliminary enquiry on the ground of violation of the principles of natural justice and the Tribunal in a cryptic manner, has upheld the validity of the domestic enquiry and the same cannot be sustained. 9. Another learned single Judge of this court in W.P.No.7989/2002 dated 25.2.2005 considering the judgment of the Apex Court referred to one supra held that recording of the finding on the preliminary issue with regard to the validity of the domestic enquiry is mandatory and only after such a finding, it will be for the management to lead evidence or not. 10. As the Tribunal has not properly considered the issue no.1 framed by it, by recording any cogent reasons considering the averments raised by the petitioner, the impugned order cannot be sustained and the same is liable to be set aside. 11. For the foregoing reasons, the impugned award is set aside and the matter is remitted to the Tribunal for adjudication afresh by exercising the jurisdiction under Section 11-A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 12. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of. No costs. AVS --------------------------- 15—11—2008 [1] AIR 1975 SC 1900