HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU WRIT PETITON No. 21019 of 2001 Dt. 09-12-2010 Between: The Registrar, Sri Padmavathi Mahila Viswavidyalayam, Tirupathi ..Petitioner And Mr. A.Prabhudas & another …respondents HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU WRIT PETITON No. 21019 of 2001 O R D E R: The Registrar, Sri Padmavathi Mahila Viswavidyalayam, Tirupathi seeks Writ of Mandamus declaring the award dated 02.08.2001 passed by the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Anantapur in I.D. No. 326 of 1997 as illegal, arbitrary, and contrary to law. At the outset, it may be clarified that appropriate writ in the circumstances, is one of Certiorari but not of Writ of Mandamus. 2. The 1st respondent was working as NMR cook in the University on time scale. The 1st respondent was irregular in attendance and several memos were issued to him on 05-06- 1986, 094-07-1986, 18.8.1986, 27-4-1988, 10-6-1988 and on 5-8- 1988 and in spite of it, he did not rectify himself by attending to the duties regularly. Therefore, a committee was constituted to inquire into the misconduct of the 1st respondent, consisting of three professors of the university. After making an oral enquiry, a report dated 23.11.1988 was submitted by the committee holding that the 1st respondent was careless in his duties and does not have the fear of punishment. It was also noticed that whenever he was attending for duties as cook, he was under drunken state; Thereupon, the management had discontinued his services in the year 1988. More than nine years thereafter, the 1st respondent approached the 2nd respondent/Labour Court with an application under section 2(A)(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 for his reinstatement with continuity of service and back wages. 3. During inquiry before the 2nd respondent, no oral or documentary evidence was let in by either of the parties. After perusing the record, the 2nd respondent/Labour Court set aside the termination order passed by the university and directed the university to issue fresh appointment to the petitioner. 4. It is contended by the petitioner’s counsel that the University gave long rope to the 1st respondent to check his misbehaviour and misconduct and in spite of it, the 1st respondent did not rectify himself and therefore, the management has no other go except to terminate his services. It is further contended that the 2nd respondent should not have entertained the dispute as the 1st respondent approached the Labour Court nearly after 10 years of his termination from service. No doubt, there is no period of limitation for workman to question the order of his termination before the 2nd respondent. But, at the same time, it should have been questioned within a reasonable time. The 1st respondent did not plead muchless prove as to how he was prevented from approaching the 2nd respondent for about nine or ten years after the termination order. It only suggests that the 1st respondent was guilty of latches and also abandoned his claim. It is evident that even in the absence of any material before the 2nd respondent /Labour Court, relief was granted in favour of the 1st respondent by the impugned award on extraneous grounds, which are not tenable in law. There is no statutory enquiry contemplated in the case of any misconduct on the part of the NMR workers. But, with a view to give reasonable opportunity to the 1st respondent, the university constituted a committee consisting of three Professors to inquire the 1st respondent. They made oral enquiry. The Memos given to the 1st respondent by the Principal on the days when he was absconding are all matters of record. It is evident that the 2nd respondent/Labour Court passed the impugned order on misplaced sympathy and not on any legal principles. The impugned order of the 2nd respondent cannot sustain scrutiny in law. 5. In the result, the writ petition is allowed making rule nisi absolute and quashing the impugned award passed by the 2nd respondent. No costs. ________________________________ SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU,J Dt: 09-12-2010 Mjl/*