IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD TUESDAY, THE TWENTY NINTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT HON'BLE SRI ANIL R. DAVE, THE CHIEF JUSTICE And HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY WRIT APPEAL NO : 496 of 2008 (Writ Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the Order dated 18/03/2008 in WP NO : 27288 OF 2007 on the file of the High Court.) Between: FGP Limited, a company incorporated under the Companies Act 1956, having is registered office at Post Box No.444, LB Shastri Marg, Thane- 400604, Maharashtra, rep.by Mr.Kishore shete, Manager ..... APPELLANT AND 1 The Presiding officer, Labour Court-III, Chandravihar , M,J.Road, Hyderabad 2 Mr.G.S.S.Reddy C/o.Mr.V.Narasimha Goud R/o.1-7-192, Bakaram, Hyderabad-500048 .....RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Appellant:MR.C.R.SRIDHARAN Counsel for the Respondent No.1 : GP FOR LABOUR Counsel for Respondent No.2 : MR.V.NARASIMHA GOUD The Court made the following : HON'BLE SRI ANIL R. DAVE, THE CHIEF JUSTICE And HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY WRIT APPEAL NO : 496 of 2008 JUDGMENT : (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice R.Subhash Reddy) This writ appeal under Clause 15 of Letters Patent is filed aggrieved by the order of learned single Judge, dated 18th March 2008, passed in writ petition No.27288 of 2007. 2. The 2nd respondent was employed in CEAT Tyres of India Limited, which was later taken over by the appellant- Company. As early as in the year 1988, disciplinary proceedings were initiated against him by issuing charge sheet dated 3rd September 1988. In the disciplinary proceedings, by order dated 20th December 1988, the 2nd respondent was dismissed from service. He has questioned the said dismissal order by raising an Industrial Dispute under Section 2 A (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 in I.D.No.282 of 1993. By an Award dated 23rd March 1996, the Labour Court has set aside the order of dismissal and ordered for reinstatement of respondent No.2 into service, but however, ordered for deferring two increments. 3. Aggrieved by the Award of the Tribunal, the 2nd respondent – workman has filed writ petition in W.P.No.16019 of 1996, whereas the Management has filed another writ petition in W.P.No.8319 of 1997, questioning the Award of the Tribunal. The learned single Judge elaborately considered various issues raised in the writ petition and through a common judgment dated 10.11.2005, remanded the matters to the Labour Court for fresh consideration, with a specific direction to record a finding on the validity of the domestic inquiry. The said judgment of the learned single Judge was also confirmed in writ appeal No.14 of 2006 filed by the management. 4. Pursuant to the order of the learned single Judge, as confirmed by the Division Bench in writ appeal, the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court-III, Hyderabad, by the order impugned in the writ petition, has recorded a finding that the domestic inquiry conducted by the management is invalid. Aggrieved by the said order of the Tribunal, dated 13th November 2007, passed in I.D.No.282 of 1993, writ petition No.27288 of 2007 was filed by the management. The learned single Judge has dismissed the said writ petition and upheld the order passed by the Tribunal. 5. In this appeal, it is mainly contended that the Tribunal, without independently considering whether any prejudice is caused to the 2nd respondent-workman or not, has passed its order by going beyond the scope of the orders passed by the learned single Judge. In this connection, the learned Counsel has placed reliance on a judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Managing Director, ECIL v. B. Karunakar[1]. 6. Primarily, the limited scope of proceedings at this stage i.e. to decide whether the inquiry conducted in domestic proceedings is valid or not, is to be viewed from the angle whether an unbiased inquiry was conducted or not. In the instant case, inspite of specifically asking, the inquiry report was not given to the 2nd respondent-workman, and further, the letter addressed by the workman for supply of domestic inquiry report, was treated as an explanation to the show cause notice, and terming it as explanation itself, the order of dismissal was passed. The said aspects are taken into consideration by the Tribunal, coupled with the findings recorded by the Division Bench in the earlier round of litigation. Therefore, it cannot be said that the workman has not suffered prejudice on account of the above said conduct of the appellant/employer. Though learned counsel for appellant has relied on the judgment in the case of Managing Director, ECIL v. B. Karunakar (1 supra), but to record a finding whether the domestic inquiry is valid or not, the ratio laid down by the Apex Court in the above judgment would not render any assistance to the appellant at this stage. 7. In that view of the matter, and in view of the reasons recorded in the order under challenge, we are in agreement with the view taken by the learned single Judge and do not find any error in the order of the learned single Judge, upholding the order of Tribunal, in which, the domestic inquiry is held to be invalid. 8. We, therefore, do not find any merit in this appeal, which is accordingly dismissed with no order as to costs. _________________ ANIL R. DAVE, CJ 29th July 2008 ______________________ R. SUBHASH REDDY, J ajr To The Presiding officer, Labour Court-III, Chandravihar , M,J.Road, Hyderabad [1] AIR 1994 SC 1074