IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE TWELFTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 11777 of 2008 Between: The Divisional Engineer-Electrical (Operations) Northern Power Distribution Company of A.P. Ltd., Sattupalli, Khammam District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 I. Prabhakar Rao S/o. Rubion, R/o. Street No. 11, Vengal Rao Nagar, Sathupally,. Khammam District. 2 The Industrial Tribunal Cum Labour Court, Warangal, Rep. by its Presiding Officer. .....RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to issue an order direction or writ particularly one in the nature of writ of Certiorari and after calling for the records quash the award passed in ID No. 77 of 2007 dt. 6-2-2008 by the Industrial Tribunal Cum Labour Court, Warangal and pass other order or orders in the interest of justice. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.G.VIDYASAGAR Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR LABOUR The Court made the following : ORDER: The first respondent was employed as Junior Lineman in the petitioner-Company, on contractual basis. A charge sheet was issued to the first respondent, alleging, inter alia, that he demanded and accepted illegal gratification from some of the consumers and that he had provided direct power supply to another consumer. After considering the explanation submitted by the first respondent, the petitioner appointed an Enquiry Officer. Domestic enquiry was conducted and the Enquiry Officer found that charges 1 and 3 are proved against the first respondent. Another show cause notice was issued to the first respondent and on a consideration of the explanation submitted by him, the petitioner passed an order dated 28.12.2004, removing the petitioner from service. Appeal preferred by the first respondent before the Chief Engineer was dismissed on 09.06.2005. Thereupon, the first respondent approached the Labour Court, Warangal, by filing I.D.No.77 of 2007. The Labour Court passed an award dated 06.02.2008, setting aside the order of removal and directing reinstatement of the petitioner with continuity of service and back wages. The same is assailed in this Writ Petition. Sri G.Vidyasagar, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that the first respondent was removed from service, after serious charges of misconduct and corruption were proved, in the domestic enquiry. He contends that the relevant facts could not be placed before the Labour Court, on account of the non-cooperative attitude of the counsel engaged by them. He submits that the Labour Court proceeded to decide the dispute, only on the basis of the facts presented by the second respondent. Sri Syed Lateef, learned counsel for the first respondent, who filed caveat, submits that the petitioner cannot take advantage of its own lapse. He submits that though the Labour Court gave number of opportunities to the petitioner, they did not come forward with any defence. It is also pointed out that the Labour Court has taken the trouble of discussing the matter on merits, although it was open to it to pass an ex parte award. After exhausting the departmental appeal, the first respondent approached the Labour Court challenging the order of removal passed by the petitioner herein. The first respondent was removed from service, on the basis of the findings recorded by the Enquiry Officer. The Labour Court passed an award setting aside the order of removal and directing reinstatement of the petitioner, with full back wages and attendant benefits. To a large extent, it is the petitioner who has contributed for such a state of affairs. The petitioner ought to have evinced proper care and attention to defend themselves in the I.D. Virtually the Labour Court was left with no alternative, except to pass an award in favour of the first respondent. This Court would have left the matter at that, but for the fact that the removal of the first respondent was on charges of corruption, public interest is also involved and lapse on the part of the petitioner in representing before the Labour Court must not be a factor by itself to put a seal of approval on the objectionable activities, if found to be true. This Court is of the view that the petitioner needs to be given an opportunity before the Labour Court. The Writ Petition is allowed, and the award, dated 06.02.2008, passed by the Labour Court in I.D.No.77 of 2007, is set aside. The matter is remanded to the Labour Court for fresh consideration and disposal and the petitioner shall ensure that fresh appearance is entered forthwith. The Labour Court shall dispose of the matter within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. This order shall not be treated as expressing any opinion on the merits of the matter. There shall be no order as to costs. ____________________ L.NARASIMHA REDDY, J Dt:12.06.2008 GJ