THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH W.P.NO.24815 OF 2000 O R D E R Heard Sri G.Ravi Mohan the learned counsel for the petitioner and Smt. P.Rajini Reddy, the Standing Counsel for the respondent – Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation. 2. Aggrieved by the award dated 4.9.2000 passed by the Industrial Tribunal - cum - Labour Court, Godavarikhani in I.D.No.153/1996 in conﬁrming the order of removal passed by the respondent – Corporation against the petitioner who was working as conductor prior to his removal, the present writ petition is filed. 3. The petitioner was working as conductor under the control of the Depot Manager, Huzurabad Depot of the Corporation at Huzarabad. On 7.3.1990 when a surprise check was exercised, it was found that the petitioner collected fare from 19 passengers and failed to issue tickets them and they were found alighting the bus without tickets at Nagampet. In the said check it was also found that the petitioner collected fare from a batch of four passengers, but failed to issue tickets to them and they were found traveling without tickets. Further the petitioner also did not close the ticket tray numbers of all denominations against stage no.5, where check was conducted. The petitioner failed to give spot explanation and he also refused to continue the service and left the bus. It is further alleged that the petitioner tried to assault the checking oﬃcials. Hence, a charge sheet was issued on 15.3.1990 and the petitioner submitted his explanation on 29.5.1990 and not being satisﬁed with the explanation, domestic enquiry was conducted and the petitioner was removed from service on 21.6.1991 and the appeal and review ﬁled by him also came to be rejected. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner raised industrial dispute in I.D.No.153/1996 on the ﬁle of Industrial Tribunal – cum – Labour Court, Godavarikhani and by award dated 4.9.2000 the Tribunal conﬁrmed the order of removal and dismissed the I.D. Challenging the award of the Tribunal, the present writ petition is filed. 4. The case of the petitioner is that the Tribunal by not considering the material evidence on record, erroneously confirmed the order of removal passed by the respondent – Corporation. It is contended that the petitioner was prosecuted for mis-appropriation of the bus cash relating to the present charge in C.C.No.196/1990 and the case ended in acquittal and this is the main reason for framing charges against the petitioner and the Tribunal by not considering the judgment in C.C.No.196/1990 found the petitioner guilty. It is stated that evidence recorded was contrary to that of the charges framed against the petitioner. The further contention of the counsel for the petitioner is that non-giving of the spot explanation of the petitioner will not amount to misconduct as alleged in the charges and further the Tribunal in utter violation of the principals of natural justice and by not appreciating the evidence on record, passed the award and the same cannot be sustained and hence the matter may be remitted to the Tribunal for fresh adjudication. In support of this contention, the learned counsel for the petitioner relied on the judgment of the learned single Judge of this court in P.K.KHAN E.406046 v. DEPOT MANAGER A.P.S.R.T.C. [1] It is ﬁnally contended that even if the charges are proved, the Tribunal can exercise the jurisdiction under Section 11-A of the Industrial Disputes Act, but the Tribunal failed to exercise the jurisdiction and erroneously conﬁrmed the order of dismissal. With these averments, the impugned award was sought to be set aside. 5. On the other hand the learned counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent – Corporation supporting the impugned award sought for dismissal of the writ petition. 6. At the outset, from a perusal of the impugned award, it could be seen that the Tribunal by noting the contents of the documents marked before the enquiry oﬃcer and in a cryptic manner without appreciating the contentions of the petitioners, held that the charges leveled against the petitioner are proved. The petitioner has disputed the domestic enquiry on the grounds of violation of the principles of natural justice. The Tribunal has not considered this aspect and proceeded with noting the contents of the documents. The Apex Court in the decision reported in COOPER ENGINEERING LTD. v. P.P.MUNDHE[2] (1 supra) held as under: “22. We are, therefore, clearly of opinion that when a case of dismissal or discharge of an employee is referred for industrial adjudication the Labour Court should ﬁrst decide as a preliminary issue whether the domestic enquiry has violated the principles of natural justice. When there is no domestic enquiry or defective enquiry is admitted by the employer there will be no difficulty. But when the matter is in controversy between the parties the question must be decided as a preliminary issue. On that decision being pronounced it will be for the management to decide whether it will adduce any evidence before the Labour court. If it chooses not to adduce any evidence, it will not be thereafter permissible in any proceedings to raise the issue. . . . . . 7. From the above judgment of the Apex Court it is clear that the Tribunal shall ﬁrst decide the validity of the domestic enquiry as a preliminary issue, to see whether the principles of natural justice has been violated in conducting the said enquiry. In the present case, as per the averments of the petitioners, noted above, they have categorically disputed the validity of the preliminary enquiry on the ground of violation of the principles of natural justice. The Tribunal has not recorded any ﬁnding on the validity of the domestic enquiry. 8. Further, as already above, the Tribunal by noting the contents of the documents marked before the enquiry oﬃcer and by recording a provisional opinion and without thoroughly discussing the entire evidence on record, held that the charges are proved against the petitioner. The mechanical procedure adopted by the Presiding Oﬃcer of the Labour Court, is highly depreciable. In the present case, the petitioner has categorically pleaded violation of the principles of natural justice and there is no discussion or ﬁnding on this aspect and further the petitioners have also raised other contentions to prove their innocence. The Tribunal, under Section 11-A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 is empowered to set aside the order of discharge or dismissal and direct re-instatement of the workman on such terms and conditions as it thinks ﬁt, or give such other relief to the workman including the award of any less punishment in lieu of discharge or dismissal as the circumstances of the case may require. In order to exercise the discretionary jurisdiction under Section 11-A of the Act, it is incumbent upon the Tribunal to appreciate the evidence available on record. 9. This court sitting under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, cannot sit as an appellate authority over the ﬁndings of the enquiry oﬃcer and record its own ﬁndings. However, this court can deﬁnitely interfere by way of judicial review, if the ﬁndings recorded are, based on no evidence or if the ﬁndings are perverse that no prudent man would arrive at. Therefore the opportunity of appreciating the evidence available on record, is vested with the Tribunal, as it is a fact ﬁnding authority. The ﬁndings of the Tribunal shall be supported with cogent and convincing reasons and it cannot rely merely on the departmental enquiry and it shall re-evaluate such evidence and record its independent ﬁndings based on evidence, meeting the contentions of the parties. A learned single Judge of this court in the decision reported in P.F.KHAN E.406046 v. DEPOT MANAGER A.P.S.R.T.C [3] considering similar circumstances held as under: “5. In a writ petition ﬁled under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, this Court cannot sit as an appellate authority over an award passed by the Labour Court. It is well settled that the Labour Court is the ﬁnal authority, as regards appreciation of the facts in an industrial dispute, before it. Further, the power of the Labour Court in moulding the relief is almost absolute, and except where the award suﬀers from patent illegality or perversity, the High Court cannot interfere with it. 7. An independent and an unbiased adjudication to the matter would take place in such matters, only when they reach a Labour court. Earlier to that for all practical purposes, one of the parties to the dispute assumes the role of an adjudicator. Therefore, heavy burden rests upon the Labour court to examine the matter from all possible angles, to satisfy itself as to whether there existed proper material to sustain the punishment imposed against the workman. The evidence adduced, may be before the disciplinary authority, needs to be appreciated afresh, as though it was adduced before the Labour Court, for the ﬁrst time. Any lapse in this regard would have its own dent into the perfection of the adjudication by the Labour Court. Reproduction of charges or making observations with semantic changes, hardly would justify the role of a Labour Court. Oral evidence, be it on behalf of the petitioner or the 1st respondent was not adduced before the Labour court, obviously, because such a step was taken before the disciplinary authority. Failure on the part of the Labour Court to appreciate the evidence that already formed part of the record, would certainly render the adjudication before it, incomplete.” 10. Another learned single Judge of this court in K.SHANKARAIAH v. THE INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL – CUM – LABOUR COURT REP. ITS PRESIDING OFFICER [4] held at paragraph no.3 as under: “There is no necessity of going into all the details. The award passed by the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Godavarikhani is not in tune with the procedure of adjudication of a dispute between the parties. Though the exhibits as marked before the Labour Court was indicated and content was recorded, there was no evaluation of the evidence and a mechanical award was passed rejecting the claim of the petitioner, simply saying that the charges against the petitioner are proved and the punishment of removal from service is proportionate to that of the charges proved. This practice made by the Labour court is liable to be deprecated. Labour Court is supposed to evaluate the evidence on either side and furnish reasons for coming to the conclusion that the charges are proved or the punishment of removal from service is proportionate to that of the misconduct alleged against the workman. In the instant case, no such attempt was made by the Labour Court. Therefore, the impugned award is not in consonance with the adjudicatory procedure to be adopted by the Labour Court, apart from being arbitrary and illegal; therefore, the same is liable to be set aside.” 11. Therefore, from the above judgments of the Apex Court and this court, it is clear that the Tribunal shall ﬁrst decide the validity of the domestic enquiry and further by re-evaluating the evidence, which was adduced before the disciplinary authority and by giving suﬃcient reasons, has to record ﬁndings thereof and then only it can be said that proper adjudicating procedure has been followed. On the contrary if the Tribunal by not framing appropriate issues and without any discussion on the disputed issues, and only by noting the exhibits marked and the contents therein, holds the workman guilty, it cannot be said that Tribunal has followed the procedure and it is an incomplete exercise in haste and in utter disregard to the fundamental rights of the parties guaranteed under the Constitution of India. 12. Therefore, for the foregoing reasons, the impugned award is set aside and the matter is remitted to the Tribunal to dispose of the same afresh within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs. AVS ------------------------------------- -- 15—11—2008 [1] 2008(3) ALT 234 [2] AIR 1975 SC 1900 [3] 2008(3) ALT 234 [4] WP.NO.13241/2001 dated 7.2.2008