THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH W.P.NOS.20761 AND 21900 OF 2001 COMMON ORDER Heard both the counsel. 2. Since the subject matter is connected, they are being disposed of by this common order. 3. The petitioner in W.P.No.21900/2001 was working as conductor in the respondent – corporation. On the ground that he produced bogus SSC certificate at the time of appointment, charge sheet was issued and after conducting domestic enquiry and based on the enquiry report, which found him guilty, he was terminated from service and the subsequent appeal and the review ended in dismissal. Hence, he raised I.D. By the impugned award dated 1.3.2001, the Industrial Tribunal Cum Labour Court, Godavarikhani, partly allowed the I.D. and directed reinstatement of the petitioner without continuity of service and without back wages. Aggrieved by the denial of continuity of service, back wages and other attendant benefits, the workman filed W.P.No.21900/2001. Similarly challenging the award of the Tribunal in reinstating the workman into service, the Corporation filed W.P.No.20761 of 2001. 4. The learned counsel appearing for the workman contended that the petitioner has not produced any bogus SSC certificate and that during the enquiry, the Corporation has not produced the original SSC certificate submitted by the Corporation at the time of appointment and it has only produced the Xerox copy and based on Xerox copies, the enquiry officer found the petitioner guilty. He stated that the enquiry was conducted in violation of the principles of natural. In the impugned award, the Tribunal by simply noting the documents, found the workman guilty. The Tribunal has not appreciated the contentions of the petitioner and it has not evaluated the material evidence on record and therefore, the award of the Tribunal has to be modified by granting the petitioner attendant benefits along with reinstatement. 5. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent – Corporation submitted that the Tribunal has found he petitioner guilty of the charge and hence it ought not have ordered reinstatement. Therefore, he sought to set aside the award of the Tribunal. 6. From a perusal of the impugned award it could be seen that the Tribunal by noting the contents of the documents, found the workman guilty and it has not appreciated the contentions of the workman and further it has also not decided the validity of the domestic enquiry. This cannot be said to be a proper adjudication of the I.D. by the Tribunal and it amounts to violation of the principles of natural justice. Further, the Tribunal has not recorded any reasons for not exercising the discretionary jurisdiction under Section 11-A of the Act, for not granting the relief to the petitioner. In similar circumstances, this court in W.P.No.24815/2000 dated 15.11.2008 held as under: “11. Therefore, from the above judgments of the Apex Court and this court, it is clear that the Tribunal shall first decide the validity of the domestic enquiry and further by re-evaluating the evidence, which was adduced before the disciplinary authority and by giving sufficient reasons, has to record findings thereof and then only it can be said that proper adjudicating procedure has been followed. On the contrary if the Tribunal by not framing appropriate issues and without any discussion on the disputed issues, and only by noting the exhibits marked and the contents therein, holds the workman guilty, it cannot be said that Tribunal has followed the procedure and it is an incomplete exercise in haste and in utter disregard to the fundamental rights of the parties guaranteed under the Constitution of India. 12. Therefore, for the foregoing reasons, the impugned award is set aside and the matter is remitted to the Tribunal to dispose of the same afresh within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs.” 7. In view of the above judgment, the impugned award is set aside and the matter is remitted back to the Tribunal to dispose of the matter afresh within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 8. Since the petitioner was reinstated pursuant to the award of the Tribunal, status quo shall be continued till the disposal of the I.D. 9. The writ petitions are accordingly disposed of. No costs. AVS ---------------------------- 06—09—2011