HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B. PRAKASH RAO AND HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. BHAVANI PRASAD W.A.No.1664 of 2005 Date: 06-04-2011 Between: Manager (Mines) Madharam Dolomite Mines and others ……. Appellants and Hon’ble Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court and others ……. Respondents HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B. PRAKASH RAO AND HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. BHAVANI PRASAD W.A.No.1664 of 2005 JUDGMENT: (Per BPR, J) This appeal is at the instance of the Management, which is filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent, inter alia, against the orders dismissing the writ filed by them in W.P.No.6909 of 2000, dated 26-07- 2005, wherein by invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners-appellants herein (Management) sought to assail the correctness of the award, dated 15-03-1999 made in I.D.No.84 of 1995 on the file of the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Warangal and consequently, to set aside the reliefs granted in favour of the second respondent- workman. Briefly, the facts, which gave rise to the present proceedings, are that admittedly the second respondent-workman was initially appointed as Junior Trainee in the petitioners-appellants’ project w.e.f. 28-11-1987. At the time of his appointment, he submitted an attested form on 27-12-1987, wherein against column No.12, which is a query as to whether he was involved in any criminal case or arrested, he mentioned as ‘No’. However, subsequently, the Management has, on verification, came to know about his involvement in a crime in C.C.No.36 of 1986 for the offence punishable under Section 324 of IPC. Therefore, a show cause notice was issued on 28-08-1989 calling upon him to explain as to why his services should not be terminated due to the suppression. Similarly another show cause notice was also followed on 20-09-1989 on the charge that he has unauthorisedly absented from 20-07-1989 to 20-09-1989. In reply to these show cause notices, the second respondent-workman admitted about the charge. Thereupon an enquiry officer was appointed who, after conducting an enquiry, submitted a report. On the basis of the said report, the services of the second respondent-workman were terminated on 14-02-1990. Hence, the second respondent-workman, by invoking the provisions under Section 2-A(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, filed a claim on 21-06- 1995, which was taken up as I.D.No.84 of 1995 by the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Warangal. The said claim was contested by the appellants herein before the Tribunal wherein, after conducting an enquiry, the impugned award was passed holding that the enquiry conducted against the workman was valid and he is guilty of the charges. However, coming to the aspect of the punishment imposed, it was found that the same is not commensurate to the gravity of the charge and hence directed the Management to reinstate the second respondent-workman afresh as a Junior Trainee. Against this award upholding the enquiry as valid and the charge having proved, no challenge is made by the second respondent-workman by way of any proceedings, and it is only the appellants herein, which is the Management, filed the writ petition assailing the correctness thereon. The learned single Judge, by taking into consideration the respective submissions made by both sides and also on appraisal of the evidence and the material on record and especially taking into consideration the fact that for the said offence in C.C.No.36 of 1986, the judgment copy of which is marked as Ex.M-16, the workman was exonerated after due admonition under the Probation of Offenders Act and the surrounding circumstances, did not find any reason or a valid ground to interfere with the award for reinstatement and for appointing the workman as Junior Trainee afresh and dismissed the writ petition. The learned single Judge also has taken into consideration the plea on behalf of the appellants herein about the jurisdiction and held that the relevant mines is located at Khammam District, over which the Labour Court of Warangal has jurisdiction and the said plea being raised for the first time was not acceded. Hence this Appeal. After hearing the counsel on either side and also on perusal of the material on record, the only point which has to be considered is whether, on the facts and circumstances, the award of the Labour Court is sustainable in view of the direction given therein for appointing the second respondent-workman afresh as Junior Trainee. There being no dispute in regard to the chequered events leading to the termination of the services of the second respondent- workman. There is also no serious dispute in regard to the allegations made against him on twin charges, viz., the factum of not correctly showing the details about his involvement in any crime against column No.12 of the attested form, which was submitted on 27-12-1987, and also his unauthorized absence. The fact also remains that the second respondent-workman has involved in a crime for the offence under Section 324 of IPC and he was admonished under the Probation of Offenders Act by the Court in C.C.No.36 of 1986. Thus on the allegations and the charges, the finding is against the second respondent-workman and the same is not challenged. Be that as it may. The labour Court, having observed to the effect that the punishment ultimately imposed vis-à-vis the charge being quite not commensurate to the gravity, hence, set aside the termination and directed afresh appointment of the second respondent-workman as Junior Trainee. It is this portion which is more attacked by the appellants in these proceedings. The learned single Judge has rightly considered these facts and found that there is no such linkage to the punishment vis-à-vis the gravity. In STATE BANK OF INDIA v. TARUN KUMAR BANERJEE AND OTHERS [1], the facts were otherwise, wherein it was held that the award of the Industrial Tribunal could possibly be interfered with. Similarly in KENDRIYA VIDYALAYA SANGATHAN v. RAM RATAN YADAV [2], the termination of services on the ground of suppression of the factum of criminal proceedings was considered and those proceedings were for offences not involving moral turpitude and even those proceedings were also subsequently withdrawn. Hence, there are not relevant. No doubt a Division Bench of this Court in T. ANIL KUMAR v. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH [3], while considering similar such suppression by a selectee to the post of District Judge, did not encourage and set aside the appointment. However, the facts in that case are totally dissimilar to the facts of the present case vis-à-vis the employment as well. Having regard to the aforesaid reasons and also the principles as laid down and especially the nature of employment and the finding as arrived by the Tribunal about the improper punishment, which is not commensurate to the gravity of the charge and as confirmed by the learned single Judge, we do not find any error nor any warrant to interfere with those findings especially exercising the powers under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent. Hence, there are no merits in this appeal. The writ appeal is, accordingly, dismissed. No order as to costs. _________________ B. PRAKASH RAO, J ___________________ G. BHAVANI PRASAD, J Date:06-04-2011 YCR [1] AIR 2000 SC 3028 [2] AIR 2003 SC 1709(1) [3] 1994 (1) ALT 22