THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B. CHANDRA KUMAR WRIT PETITION No. 18225 of 2001 O R D E R: This Writ Petition has been filed seeking a direction to issue a writ in the nature of mandamus declaring the Award of the 1st respondent dated 30.03.2001 in I.D.No. 49 of 1998 as illegal, arbitrary and without jurisdiction. The brief facts of the case are as follows: The 2nd respondent herein was appointed as a Supervisor in the Primary Agricultural Development Bank at Mahaboobabad. On 02.05.1990, he accompanied the Manager of Thorrur Branch for collection of dues. An amount of Rs.18,609-50 Ps. was collected and was entrusted to the 2nd respondent for depositing the same into the bank. The 2nd respondent did not deposit the said amount and kept the amount with him and he applied for leave from 15.05.1991. He was placed under suspension on 18.06.1991 and departmental enquiry was ordered against him. The Enquiry Officer conducted an enquiry and submitted a report holding that the 2nd respondent is guilty of the charges framed against him. Based on the said enquiry report, after issuing show cause notice, the General Manager passed orders dismissing the 2nd respondent from service. Aggrieved by the same, the 2nd respondent raised an industrial dispute. The learned Chairman of the Industrial Tribunal -cum- Labour Court at Warangal, by the impugned Award, set aside the dismissal order and directed that the 2nd respondent be reinstated in the service of the petitioners with continuity of service, full backwages and other benefits. Challenging the same, the present Writ Petition has been filed. The main contention of the learned counsel for the writ petitioners is that the petitioners had taken a specific plea that the 2nd respondent was working as a Supervisor and that he does not come within the definition of ‘workman’ under Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and that the findings of the Presiding Officer of the Labour Court are not correct. It is also submitted that the petitioners were not given any opportunity for adducing evidence before the Labour Court to prove the charges levelled against the 2nd respondent. There is no representation for the 2nd respondent. The charge is misappropriation of amount and absconding from the duties. It appears that when the Labour Court came to a conclusion that the enquiry report is vitiated for violating the principles of natural justice and when the management intends to adduce evidence in support of the charges levelled against the workman, the management should be given an opportunity to adduce evidence. In the above circumstances, the impugned Award is set aside. The matter is remitted to the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court at Warangal and the parties are at liberty to adduce evidence, if any and based on the same, the Labour Court may pass fresh Award in accordance with law. The Writ Petition is accordingly allowed. No costs. -------------------------------- (B. CHANDRA KUMAR, J) 02nd December 2010 ksld