THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH W.P.NO.11204 OF 2003 O R D E R Heard both the counsel. 2. Aggrieved by the Award dated 4.3.2003 passed by the Labour Court – I, Hyderabad, in granting reinstatement to the workman, the management filed the writ petition. 3. The 2nd respondent – workman is an unskilled worker in writ petitioner – Bharat Heavy Electrical Limited Rangareddy District. He joined in service on 24.6.1978 and during the course of service, promoted to the post of Operator Grade IV (pump) with effect from 21.3.1987. The averment of the management is that the 2nd respondent has bad record of unauthorized absence on different occasions and also suffered punishments and warning letters. The present charge relates to his unauthorized absence from 5.5.1999 to 14.6.1999. Though the workman was served with letters of enquiry, he did not participate in the enquiry and hence the enquiry officer conducted enquiry ex parte and submitted report holding the workman guilty of misconduct and the workman was issued letter dated 22.9.1999 along with the enquiry report for his explanation and though the workman was served with the said letter, he did not file any reply and therefore, based on the enquiry report, the workman was removed from service by order dated 26.2.2000. Challenging the same, the workman raised industrial dispute under Section 2-A(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and the Labour Court by the impugned award set aside the order of removal and granted reinstatement with continuity of service, without back wages. Aggrieved by the same, the present writ petition is filed by the management. 4. The case of the petitioner – Management is that the workman has very bad record and he is an habitual absentee and he was issued punishments number of times, but he did not change his habit and coming to the present charge, he absented from duty unauthorizedly for the period from 5.5.1999 to 14.6.1999 and through he produced medical certificate stating that he suffered from viral fever, the said certificate pertains to 23.8.1999 to 4.9.1999 and hence the same cannot be relied upon and even the Labour Court also rightly rejected the same. Their further case is that when the enquiry report was found to be correct by the Labour Court and that when there was no proper explanation from the workman and that the previous conduct of the workman is bad, it is improper on the part of the Labour Court to award reinstatement. Hence, the impugned award is sought to be set aside. 5. On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for the workman submitted that the Labour Court in order to give a chance to the workman has ordered reinstatement without back wages and hence as the discretion under Section 11-A of the Act was exercise by the Labour Court, interference with the same, may not be warranted. With this submission, the learned counsel sought for dismissal of the writ petition. 6. From the material on record, it could be seen that there is no dispute with regard to the factual position and the misconduct of the workman with regard to unauthorized absence is proved. But it is be noticed that the workman has about 22 years of service and considering his length of service and the family dependent upon him, the Labour Court, in order to give an opportunity to the workman to correct himself, granted reinstatement with continuity of service, without back wages. In view of these facts and circumstances, I am of the considered view, that the award of the Labour Court in granting reinstatement by exercising its discretionary jurisdiction purportedly under Section 11-A of the Act, needs no interference and the writ petition is accordingly dismissed. No costs. AVS --------------------------- -------- 01--03— 2011