ORAL ORDER: This writ petition is filed seeking a Certiorari to call for the records relating to award made in I.D.No.58 of 1997 on the file of the Industrial Tribunal-I, Hyderabad and quash the same as arbitrary and illegal. Petitioner is management and third respondent is workman (since died) and his legal representatives have been brought on record as per the orders of the Court dated 28.3.2008 in W.P.M.P.No.2211 of 2002. The third respondent while working as sub-staff, was proceeded with departmentally on the ground that he absented from duty for 117 days i.e. from 17.7.1989 to 24.10.1989 and his services were terminated with effect from 7.2.1991 on the ground of ‘voluntary abandonment of bank’s service’. Questioning the same, third respondent filed a petition under Section 2-A(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 before the first respondent-Industrial Tribunal stating that he joined the service of Petitioner-Bank as sub-staff in the year 1978 at Eluru branch and served the bank in various branches in the said capacity and ultimately he was transferred to Bolarum branch to work in the capacity of Daftary in the year 1989. During the tenure of his service at Bolarum branch, in the year 1990, some unsocial elements practiced black magic on him, as a result of which, he left his wife and children to their fate and went away from the house. He was not in a position to attend either to his domestic work or to his official duties. He was totally unconscious of his physical presence during the said period. At last, his family members and relatives found him at Madras and then he was brought back to Hyderabad and was treated upon and slowly he came out of the ill effects of black magic during July 1992 and when he went to Bolarum branch for joining duty, the Branch Manager advised him to report at Regional Office. Accordingly, he contacted the authorities of Regional Office and he was informed that his services were terminated vide impugned order dated 7.2.1991 on the ground of ‘voluntary abandonment of bank’s service’. Immediately, thereafter he submitted a representation to the Bank explaining the circumstances under which he was compelled to be absent from duties during the said period and requested the Bank to allow him to join the duties. Though the petitioner approached the Bank authorities on several times, but there was no response. He also submitted representations to the Bank on 7.7.1992 and 10.12.1992, but they did not yield any result. Therefore, the act of the Bank in terminating his services on the ground of ‘voluntary abandonment of bank’s service’ is void, illegal and against the principles of natural justice and also against Sastry Award and allied Bi-partite settlements. A detailed counter affidavit has been filed by the Bank denying the allegations made by the workman stating that in view of bipartite settlement, the services of the workman were terminated, therefore, there is no necessity of conducting a detailed enquiry into the matter. After hearing both the parties and after perusing the entire record, the first respondent-Industrial Tribunal came to the conclusion that termination of workman on the ground of ‘voluntary abandonment of bank’s service’ is not just and proper and it is in gross violation of principles of natural justice, therefore directed for reinstatement of workman with continuity of service and with 50% back wages. Aggrieved by the same, the present writ petition is filed. The learned counsel for petitioner-Bank Mr.C.V.Rajeeva Reddy strenuously contended that the respondent-workman was bound by the bi-partite settlement and in view of the said settlement, the services of the workman were treated as ‘voluntary abandonment of bank’s service’ and the Industrial Tribunal was not right in setting aside the termination order on the ground of violation of principles of natural justice. Further, the Industrial Tribunal has not recorded any reasons in awarding 50% back wages and it is bounden duty of the Industrial Tribunal to record reasons for awarding 50% back wages. Therefore, the award of the Industrial Tribunal is arbitrary, illegal and liable to be set aside. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for third respondent- workman supported the award passed by the Industrial Tribunal and submitted that the award passed by the Industrial Tribunal is in consonance with the establish principles of law, since the services of the workman were terminated without conducting a detailed enquiry. The termination is against Shastri award and allied bi-partite settlements between the parties. Apart from that, in a case of this nature, where the order of termination is ex-facie illegal, only course left open was to grant full back wages. In this case, only 50% back wages were granted and in fact, the workman left to his fate and accepted the same. Therefore, the award passed by the Industrial Tribunal cannot be said to be either arbitrary or illegal, calling interference of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 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. I am of the opinion that the award passed by the Industrial Tribunal does not call for any interference by this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Firstly, treating the services of workman as ‘voluntary abandonment of bank’s service’ is not in consonance with the established procedures of law and secondly, it is in gross violation of principles of natural justice. Further, the Bank did not bring to the notice of the Industrial Tribunal that termination was done as per the settlement reached between the parties. Therefore, it cannot be said that the Industrial Tribunal has committed any error in setting aside the termination order of the workman. Further, the workman at para 11 of his claim petition stated that owing to termination from service, he and his family members have been virtually starving for food for the past seven years and they have no other means to survive. He further stated that he is unable to maintain and look after his children and their welfare. The respondents though filed a detailed counter, did not assert that the workman was gainfully employed during the pendency of I.D. before the Industrial Tribunal. It was simply stated that the financial hardships/personal problems of the workman as narrated in paragraphs 11 and 12 of the claim statement are not correct and the workman shall be put to strict proof of the same. Except this, nothing was stated. However, the Industrial Tribunal held that the order of termination was ex- facie illegal and since absenteeism is a matter of record, while invoking its powers, in the facts and circumstances of the case and to meet the ends of justice, directed for reinstatement of workman with continuity of service and with 50% back wages. Though no much reasons were furnished for awarding 50% back wages, I am of the opinion that the Industrial Tribunal has not committed any error in awarding 50% back wages. In fact, the Industrial Tribunal has denied 50% back wages in view of the fact that absenteeism is a matter of record and the workman cannot be led without any punishment. For all the above reasons, I am of the opinion that the Industrial Tribunal has not committed any error calling interference of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The writ petition is devoid of merits and liable to be dismissed. Since it is noticed that third respondent-workman died during the pendency of writ petition, the Petitioner Bank is directed to pay all the retiral benefits, as per law, to the legal representatives of the workman along with 50% back wages as awarded by the Industrial Tribunal, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. ____________ C.V.RAMULU, J Date: 28.3.2008 DA THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU W.P.No.13303 of 1999 28.3.2008 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE TWENTY EIGHTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU WRIT PETITION NO : 13303 of 1999 Between: The Regional Manager, Central Bank of India, Regional Office, Centra Bank Building, Bank Street, Koti, Hyderabad. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 Industrial Tribunal - I, Chandra Vihar, Mozam Jahi Road, Nampally, Hyderabad. 2 Secretary, Government of India, Ministry of Labour, Shram Mantralaya, New Delhi. 3 Sri S.Yadagiri, S/o. Chilkayya, H.No. 1-8-828/1, Sree Ram Nagar, Nallakunta, Hyderabad. .....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 a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ or order or direction in the nature of writ under Article 226 of the Constitution of India calling for records of I.D.No. 58/97 on the file of the 1st respondnet dt. 8.12.98 and consequential notification of the 2nd respondnet dt. 10.2.99 and quash the same 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.C.V.RAJEEVA REDDY Counsel for the Respondent No.: MR.N.GURU GOPAL The Court made the following :