THE HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G. ROHINI Writ Petition No. 11534 of 1999 Dated: 05 .03.2010 Between: APSRTC, rep., by its Depot Manager, Ananthapur District. … Petitioner And The Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Ananthapur and another. … Respondents THE HON'BLE Ms. JUSTICE G.ROHINI Writ Petition No. 11534 of 1999 O R D E R : A.P. State Road Transport Corporation filed this writ petition seeking a certiorari to call for the records relating to award dated 24.07.1998 in I.D.No.136 of 1995 on the file of the Industrial Tribunal cum Labour Court, Ananthapur and to quash the same being arbitrary and illegal. The facts in brief are as under: The 2nd respondent (herein after called as workman) filed I.D.No.136 of 1995 under Section 2-A (1) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short ‘the Act’) challenging the order of removal dated 02.12.1992 passed by the Corporation on the ground of misconduct. The Corporation contested the matter by filing a counter. However, no evidence either oral or documentary was produced by either of the parties before the Tribunal. After hearing both the parties the Labour Court passed the impugned award dated 24.07.1998, holding that the findings recorded by the Enquiry Officer did not warrant interference. However, in exercise of the jurisdiction conferred under Section 11-A of the Act,the Labour Court had set aside the order of removal and directed reinstatement of the workman with continuity of service but without back wags. I have heard the learned counsel for the Corporation. None appeared for the workman. Having regard to the facts and circumstance, I do not find any justifiable reason to interfere with the discretion exercised by the labour Court in exercise of power vested under Section 11-A of the Act. The law is well settled that under Section 11-A of the Act, wide discretion has been vested with the Tribunal in the matter of awarding relief according to the circumstances of the case. In the instant case, the Tribunal below having found that the punishment imposed was harsh thought it fit to modify the same by directing reinstatement without back wages. It is apparent that the said modification of penalty was made on application of mind to the facts and circumstances of the case and assigning cogent reasons therefor. The interference by this Court with such judicial discretion exercised by the Tribunal below is not warranted in exercise of the writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed. No costs. _____________ G. ROHINI, J. Date:05.03.2010 klp