THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU W.P.No.6566 of 1999 Dated:06.02.2008 Between M/s.Jubilee Hills International Center, rep., by its Secretary Jubilee Hills, Hyderabad …..Petitioner and 1.The Presiding Officer, Labour Corut-I, Hyderabad and another. …Respondent THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU W.P.No.6566 of 1999 ORDER This writ petition is filed being aggrieved by an Award made in I.D.No.31 of 1995 dated 7.3.1998 on the file of the Labour Court-I, Hyderabad whereunder the respondent-workman was directed to be reinstated into service afresh without continuity of service, attendant benefits and back wages. Petitioner is the Management and 2nd respondent is the workman. 2nd respondent worked as waiter in the petitioner’s club. While that being so, he was served with charge sheet on 27.3.1993 enumerating as many as four charges. The sum and substance of the charges is that he abused a cleaning woman and also picked up quarrel and assaulted one Shankar and pasted posters containing objectionable and abusive language. After conducting a detailed enquiry into the same, he was dismissed from service. Aggrieved thereby, 2nd respondent raised a dispute under Section 2-A (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947( for short ‘the Act’) before the Labour Court-I, Hyderabad. On behalf of petitioner and 2nd respondent - none were examined. On behalf of 2nd respondent Exs.W1 to W6 were marked and Exs.M1 to M15 were marked on behalf of the petitioner. After a detailed consideration of the entire material placed before it, the labour Court held that the domestic enquiry conducted by the petitioner-Management was valid and proved and further held that charge No.1 is not proved and though the charge Nos.2 to 4 are proved, they do not call for dismissal of 2nd respondent from service since the same is disproportionate to that of the misconduct alleged against him and that the same is his first misconduct. Therefore, directed the petitioner to reinstate him afresh without continuity of service and back wages. Aggrieved by the same, the present writ petition is filed. While admitting the writ petition, no stay has been granted by this Court. It appears that 2nd respondent was already reinstated into service and he is serving for the last more than nine years. It is the contention of the petitioner that the Labour Court while holding that the charge Nos.2 to 4 are proved, ought not to have interfered into the order of dismissal passed by the petitioner, since the charges are grave in nature and it is un- desirable that such an employee should be taken into service. Be that as it may, in the facts and circumstances of the case, while exercising its powers under Section 11-A of the Act, the Labour Court has passed an order of fresh appointment holding that the punishment of dismissal from service is disproportionate to that of the misconduct alleged against 2nd respondent, while denying the continuity of service, attendant benefits and back wages. I am not inclined to interfere with the discretionary order passed by the Labour Court. Writ petition is devoid of merits and is liable to be dismissed. Writ petition is accordingly dismissed. No costs. ________ 6-2-2008 rkk