IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD MONDAY, THE THIRTIETH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT APPEAL NO : 106 of 2001 (Writ Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the Order dated in NO : OF on the file of the High Court.) Between: ..... APPELLANT AND .....RESPONDENT Counsel for the Appellant:SMT.P.RAJANI REDDY Counsel for the Respondent No.: MR.K.BALAGOPAL The Court made the following : HON’BLE MRS JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI AND HON’BLE MR JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN W.A.No.106 of 2001 ORDER: (per HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN) This appeal is preferred by the A.P. State Road Transport Corporation aggrieved by the order in W.P.No.2248 of 2000 dated 21.11.2000, rejecting the challenge of the A.P.S.R.T.C. to the award of the Industrial Tribunal-cum- Labour Court, Godavarikhani in I.D.No.185 of 1993 dated 25.3.1997. The 1st respondent-workman filed an application under section 2-A(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act to set aside the order of dismissal passed on 28.6.1993 and for his reinstatement with continuity of service and back wages etc. Before the Industrial Tribunal several contentions were raised. The Tribunal firstly examined the validity of the domestic enquiry and, by order dated 17.2.1997, held that the domestic enquiry was invalid. Thereafter, though the appellant herein was given an opportunity to let in evidence, no further evidence was let in either by the appellant Corporation or the 1st respondent-workman. The Industrial Tribunal held that once the departmental enquiry is vitiated, the entire matter became invalid and it was for the appellant- Corporation to adduce evidence and produce material afresh before the Tribunal for its consideration and, as the appellant had not let in any evidence, there was absolutely no material to prove the charge. The Tribunal further held that, in the absence of police warrants and due to non- examination of the police constable, the charge was not proved. As a result an award was passed setting aside the order of removal and directing the appellant herein to reinstate the 1st respondent workman with continuity of service, attendant benefits and with back wages. The Learned Single Judge, on a detailed consideration of the award of the Labour Court, noticed that the enquiry was held to be vitiated by the Tribunal, that though the management was given an opportunity to establish the charge they were not able to adduce any evidence either oral or documentary to establish the charge and therefore the Tribunal had allowed the I.D and had granted relief to the 1st respondent workman. The Learned Single Judge noted that the 1st respondent workman had already been reinstated into service, that he was being continued in service and that there were no circumstances warranting interference in the writ petition. Smt. P. Rajani Reddy, Learned Standing Counsel for APSRTC, would contend that even though the domestic enquiry was held to be vitiated, the Learned Single Judge ought not to have dismissed the writ petition but should, instead, have remanded the matter to the Tribunal for its consideration afresh from the stage where the enquiry was held to be vitiated. We are afraid we cannot agree. Once the Tribunal records a finding that the domestic enquiry is vitiated, the entire proceedings culminating in the order of punishment stands automatically set aside and it is for the employer to let in evidence afresh before the Tribunal to establish the charge. The right of the employer to adduce evidence is subject to a specific plea being taken by them before the Tribunal seeking its permission to adduce evidence afresh. In the present case, though the Tribunal gave an opportunity to the appellant herein to adduce evidence afresh, the appellant chose not to avail the opportunity and did not adduce any evidence. There was no other alternative for the Industrial Tribunal but to pass the award directing reinstatement of the 1st respondent workman with continuity of service and other benefits. Neither the award of the Industrial Tribunal nor the order of the Learned Single Judge suffer from any infirmity necessitating interference by us. The writ appeal fails and is accordingly dismissed. No costs. _____________________ T.MEENA KUMARI,J Date: 30-6-2008 ___________________________ RAMESH RANGANATHAN,J Asp/gs