IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD TUESDAY, THE SIXTEENTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH W.P.No.935 of 2002 Between: Deverashetti Janardhan … Petitioner And The Chairman, Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Godavarikhani, Karimnagar District and another. … Respondents THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE G. CHANDRAIAH W.P. No.935 of 2002 ORDER: This writ petition has been filed seeking Writ of Certiorari calling for the records from the 1st respondent pursuant to the Award dated 03.03.2001 passed in I.D. No.19 of 1998 by the learned Chairman, Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Godavarikhani, (for short ‘the learned Tribunal) and quash the same as illegal, invalid and without jurisdiction and consequently direct the 2nd respondent, Depot Manager, APSRTC, Metpally, Karimnagar District, (for short ‘the Corporation), to reinstate the petitioner into service with continuity of service and all attendant benefits including full back wages. The case of the petitioner, in brief, is that he was appointed in the respondent’s Corporation as Conductor in the year 1981 on regular basis and his services were regularized after completion of his probation period. During the year 1993, the petitioner was elected as President of the Joint Action Committee of Metpally Depot and he was representing the grievances of the employees of the 2nd respondent’s Corporation. While so, on 17.10.1993, the petitioner was directed to operate the service on route Metpally – Jagtial with bus bearing No.8024 and accordingly, the petitioner was operating the service as per the schedule. But the vehicle, which was supplied to the petitioner, was having some defect and as such, the service driver was driving the bus slowly because the vehicle was not pulling the load and the condition of the road in that route was not good. Thus, the service was operating late and the petitioner arrived at Metpally bus station at 18.00 hours instead of 15.45 hours, thus there was a delay of 2 hours 15 minutes. As such, the Controller on duty has instructed the petitioner to operate the next schedule trip of 18.45 hours and also made necessary endorsement in the statistical return (S.R.) but however, he failed to make the endorsement about the cancellation of scheduled trip of 15.45 hours. It is also submitted that in pursuance to the direction of the Controller on duty, the petitioner operated the 18.45 hours trip and arrived at Metpally at 22.30 hours instead of 21.30 hours. Thus there was a delay of one hour in operating the last trip also, which is caused due to the reasons stated hereinabove about the vehicle and road. As no Controller was available at the bus station, at that time and hence, the petitioner went to the depot and handed over the bus cash in the office. It is also submitted by the petitioner that without any reason, the petitioner was placed under suspension and also issued a charge sheet on 28.10.1993, for which he submitted his explanation denying the charges leveled against him and after conducting domestic enquiry, he was removed from service vide order dated 02.11.1994. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner raised Industrial Dispute being I.D. No.19 of 1998 before the learned Tribunal under Section 2-A(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and the same was dismissed by Award dated 03.03.2001 holding that the charges leveled against the petitioner are proved and that the punishment of removal of he petitioner from service is proportionate to the charges. Assailing the same, the petitioner filed the present writ petition. The petitioner submitted in his affidavit, filed in support of this writ petition, that the award passed by the learned Tribunal is based on a false report of Ex.M-2, report of Sri Y.B. Rao, Controller, who gave instructions to the petitioner to perform the last trip of 18.45 hours duly canceling the previous trip as the bus was running late by more than two hours and also made the necessary endorsement in the S.R. Ex.M-1. As such, Ex.M-2, filed by the 2nd respondent is false as it is a created document since that itself is contrary to Ex.M-1. Thus the award passed by the learned Tribunal is erroneous and the same is liable to be quashed. From a perusal of the record, it is not in dispute that the petitioner is an employee of the 2nd respondent Corporation and while performing his duty, certain charges were leveled against him and removed from service. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner filed I.D. No.19 of 1998 wherein the order of removal of the petitioner was confirmed. Assailing the same, the petitioner filed the present writ petition stating that the learned Tribunal had not properly appreciated the evidence on record and erroneously passed the impugned award. The main contention of the petitioner in this writ petition is that based on false report of Ex.M-2, report of Sri Y.B.Rao, Controller, the impugned award was passed. Further it is also submitted that on the instructions of the Controller only the petitioner performed last trip of 18.45 hours duly canceling the previous trip as the bus was running late by more than two hours and also made necessary endorsement in the S.R. Ex.M-1. From a perusal of the award passed by the learned Tribunal, there is no discussion in respect of Ex.M-1 but it is mentioned in respect of Ex.M-2 that the petitioner cancelled one trip of Jagrial- Metpally unauthorisedly. But there is no constructive discussion about exhibits, except mentioning what is document and its contents, that too, in respect of some documents only. Though the powers are vested to the learned Tribunal under Section 11-A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, the same are not properly exercised by the learned Tribunal. For better appreciation, Section 11-A of the said Act is extracted hereunder: “11-A. Power of Labour Courts, Tribunals and National Tribunals to give appropriate relief in case of discharge or dismissal of Workmen:- Where an industrial dispute relating to the discharge or dismissal of a workman has been referred to a Labour Court, Tribunal or National Tribunal for adjudication and, in the course of the adjudication proceedings, the Labour Court, Tribunal or National Tribunal, as the case may be, is satisfied that the order of discharge or dismissal was not justified, it may, by its award, set aside the order of discharge or dismissal and direct re-instatement of the workman on such terms and conditions, if any, as it thinks fit, or give such other relief to the workman including the award of any lesser punishment in lieu of discharge or dismissal as the circumstances of the case may require: From the above, it is clear that the learned Tribunal had not properly exercised its powers and failed to discuss in respect of all the documents, exhibits, in detail. Therefore, I am of the view that the learned Tribunal failed to give any cogent reasons while passing the impugned award. It is not out of place to note here that during pendency of this writ petition, on 05.09.2008, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that similar charges were framed against the driver of the bus in question but he was exonerated from the charges and reinstated into service. Though the learned standing counsel for the Corporation took time to get instructions, there is no further submission in respect of the same. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, I deem it appropriate to remit the matter to the learned Tribunal for fresh disposal. Accordingly, the award passed in I.D. No.19 of 1998 on 03.03.2001 by the learned Tribunal is set aside and directed to pass award afresh, after giving an opportunity to both the parties, in accordance with law. However, since the dispute is of the year 1998, the learned Tribunal is directed to complete the said exercise and pass the award afresh, within a period of two months, from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. ___________________________ JUSTICE G. CHANDRAIAH Date: 16-11-2010 LSK