THE HON'BLE Ms. JUSTICE G.ROHINI WRIT PETITION No. 22592 OF 2000 Dated: 28.01.2011 Between: Syed Azam ..... Petitioner And The Depot Manager, APSRTC ….. Respondent The Court made the following : THE HONL’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G. ROHINI WRIT PETITION No.22592 OF 2000 ORDER : This writ petition is filed seeking a Certiorari to call for the records relating to the Award, dated 21.07.2000 in I.D.No.147 of 1996 on the file of the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Godavarikhani and to quash the same being arbitrary and illegal. I.D.No.147 of 1996 was filed by the petitioner herein under Section 2-A(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 claiming that the order of removal passed by the respondent – A.P. State Road Transport Corporation (for short, ‘the Corporation’) was arbitrary and illegal. Though the Corporation filed a counter contesting the I.D., none was examined on its behalf. However the Labour Court, while relying upon the documents filed by the Corporation along with its counter, upheld the penalty of removal from service. Aggrieved by the said award passed by the Labour Court in I.D.No.147 of 1996, this writ petition has been filed by the workman. Heard the learned counsel for both the parties and perused the material available on record. At the outset, it is to be noticed that the Labour Court did not record any finding as to the validity of the domestic enquiry held but straightaway formulated the point for consideration as under: “Whether the punishment of removal from the service is in proportion to the charge proved?” It is a well-settled principle that where the domestic enquiry held is found to be valid, the evidence recorded in the domestic enquiry constitutes a valid piece of evidence against the employee and therefore the Labour Court can proceed further accepting the finding recorded in the domestic enquiry. However if the domestic enquiry held is found to be invalid, it is necessary for the Labour Court to hold a fresh enquiry ignoring the proceedings held by the management. As noticed above, the Labour Court in the instant case did not record any finding as to the validity of the domestic enquiry held. In the absence of such finding, it is not open to the Labour Court to straightway go into the question of the proportionality of the penalty imposed. As the Labour Court had admittedly failed to make an independent enquiry and neither a point was recorded as to whether the charges against the workman were proved nor a finding as such was recorded, on the face of it, the impugned award is erroneous and cannot be sustained under law. Accordingly, the impugned award is hereby set aside and the Writ Petition is disposed of with a direction to the Labour Court to reconsider the I.D.No.147 of 1996 and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of three (3) months from the date of receipt of this order. No costs. _____________ G. ROHINI, J. Dt. 28.01.2011 Ivd