THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION No.32066 of 1997 Dated:21.01.2008 Between: The Management of Deccan Club, Marredpally, Secunderabad. ..... PETITIONER AND Industrial Tribunal-II, Chandravihar Buildings, M.J.Road, Hyderabad and another. .....RESPONDENTS THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION No.32066 of 1997 ORDER: This writ petition is filed by the petitioner/employer aggrieved by the award of the Industrial Tribunal-II, Hyderabad, in I.D.No.43 of 1995, dated 19.04.1997. Pursuant to a reference made by the Government under Section 10(1)(d) of the Industrial Disputes Act 1947, as to whether the management of the Deccan Club Marredpally, Hyderabad was justified in terminating the services of nineteen workmen, the dispute was numbered as I.D.No.43 of 1995. Petitioner herein remained ex parte. The Industrial Tribunal, considering the evidence of W.W.1 and Exs.W.1 to W3, passed an award directing reinstatement of the nineteen workmen with back wages. The dispute in I.D.No.43 of 1995 related to the very employment of nineteen workmen in the petitioner-club and on the basis of the evidence adduced on behalf of the workmen, the Industrial Tribunal directed reinstament with back wages. I see no reason to examine this question relating to the reinstatement of the nineteen workmen in Certiorari proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, since the petitioner herein remained ex parte before the Industrial Tribunal. In so far as payment of back wages is concerned, the Supreme Court, in General Manager, Vijaya Bank V. Pramod Kumar Gupta[1] and in J.K.Synthetics Limited v. K.P.Agarwal [2], held that the Labour Court is required to examine several factors before deciding whether back wages should be granted and, if so, the quantum of back wages. Since this question is required to be examined by the Industrial Tribunal on its own accord, even though the petitioner herein had remained ex parte, I consider it appropriate to set aside the award only to the limited extent the Industrial Tribunal had granted back wages to the respondent-workmen. It is made clear that in so far as reinstatement of the nineteen workmen is concerned the Award of the Industrial Tribunal is not being interfered with. Sri B.G.Ravindra Reddy, learned counsel for the respondent-workmen, would submit that pursuant to the interim order passed by this Court, 1/3rd of the back wages was deposited by the petitioner herein and that the workmen were permitted to withdraw the amounts without security. According to the learned counsel, as the workmen have withdrawn the amounts deposited by the petitioner, any direction now being passed by the Labour Court would cause grave prejudice to them. It is not for this Court in Certiorari proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to examine as to whether back wages should be awarded or not and if so, what is the quantum of back wages to be granted when this question has not been considered by the Labour Court. Ends of justice would be met by holding that the amount of 1/3rd back wages withdrawn by the workmen shall be subject to further orders which may be passed by the Industrial Tribunal on the Industrial Dispute being remanded for its fresh consideration in accordance with law. Since the writ petition relates to the year 1997, it is appropriate that the Industrial Tribunal examines this question and passes an award afresh within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. ________________________ (Ramesh Ranganathan, J) 21st January 2008. sh [1] (2006) SCC 379 [2] (2007) 2 SCC 433