HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI WRIT PETITION No. 14504 OF 2010 Thursday, the Twelfth Day of August, Two Thousand and Ten Between K.Santhosh Kumar Petitioner AND The Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum Labour Court at Hyderabad, Rep.by its Presiding Officer, M2 Block, Manoranjan Complex, M.J. Road, Hyderabad and others Respondents ORAL ORDER: The award dated 27.4.2009 passed by the first respondent in LC ID No. 67 of 2005 negativing the claim of the petitioner for regularization of his services, is assailed in this writ petition. The petitioner raised an industrial dispute assailing the oral termination dated 6.6.2005 and sought for reinstatement with all attendant benefits. After recording of cross-examination of MW-1, the petitioner filed IA No. 9 of 2006, calling for certain documents from the Respondent Bank to show that he has continuously worked for 240 days and, as such, entitled for regularization, which was dismissed by the first respondent. Assailing the said dismissal order, the petitioner and others filed WP No.22995 of 2006, which was allowed by an order dated 3.8.2007 directing the first respondent to call for the records mentioned in the said I.A. Aggrieved by the same, the respondent bank preferred Writ Appeal No.499 of 2009 which was dismissed by a Division Bench of this court on 3.6.2009. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that pending Writ Appeal, the impugned Award was passed on 27.4.2009 and no documents, as sought for by the petitioner, were neither summoned nor looked into before passing the impugned Award and, hence, the same is liable to be set aside. Per contra, it is the contention of the learned counsel for the respondent bank that there was no occasion for the Bank to produce the documents, as the writ appeal was pending before this Court and in the meanwhile, the Award has been passed. Evidently, the Award impugned herein is passed without looking into the documents sought to be summoned by the petitioner, which, according to him, prove that he had worked continuously for more than 240 days. It is also a fact that the judgment dated 3.6.2009 passed by a Division Bench of this Court in Writ Appeal No. 499 of 2009 has become final. Therefore, in the facts and circumstances of the case, as it is the specific case of the petitioner that the documents 1 to 11 mentioned in IA No. 9 of 2006 are essential to show that he has worked continuously for more than 240 days and since the impugned order is passed without looking into those documents and as the judgment passed in the Writ Appeal had become final, this court is of the considered view that the matter can be remanded for consideration afresh by the first respondent. Consequently, while setting aside the Award impugned herein, the respondent bank is directed to produce the documents before the first respondent within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The first respondent – Tribunal is directed to pass the Award afresh, after affording opportunity to both the parties, within a period of three months thereafter in accordance with law. The Writ Petition is accordingly allowed remanding the matter to the first respondent for consideration afresh, as stated above. No order as to costs. ________________________ Justice T. Meena Kumari August 12, 2010 MAS