THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH W.P.NO.2912 OF 2002 O R D E R Heard both the counsel. 2. The petitioner was working as Conductor in the respondent – Corporation. On 22.1.1999, a check was conducted and it was found that the petitioner failed to issue tickets to ﬁve individual passengers even after collecting fare of Rs.2-50 each from them and they are found alighting the bus at the time of check without tickets. It was also found that the petitioner failed to issue tickets to three individual passengers even after collecting fare of Rs.3/- each from them and the petitioner also closed the ticket try numbers of all denominations up to stage no.31. After conducting the domestic enquiry, the petitioner was removed from service on 19.3.1999 and his appeal and review also came to be rejected. Challenging the same, he raised industrial dispute in I.D.No.37/2000 on the ﬁle of Industrial Tribunal – cum – Labour Court, Godavarikhani and by award dated 8.10.2001, the I.D. was dismissed and aggrieved by the same, he ﬁled the present writ petition. 3. The grievance of the petitioner is that the domestic enquiry is vitiated by violation of principles of natural justice and he also raised other grounds justifying his stand. 4. At the out set it is to be noticed that the Industrial Tribunal is excepted to ﬁrst decide the validity of the demotic enquiry and after considering the evidence on record, which is adduced before the enquiry oﬃcer, shall examine whether the ﬁndings arrived at are based on evidence and whether they are not vitiated by perversity and also shall examine the proportionality of the punishment imposed and by recording sound reasons, may interfere with the punishment imposed and award less punishment or conﬁrm the punishment imposed by the employer. The Apex Court in the decision reported in COOPER ENGINEERING LTD. v. P.P. MUNDHE [1] 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. . . . . .” From the above judgment it is clear that the Labour Court shall ﬁrst decide as a preliminary issue whether the domestic enquiry has violated the principles of natural justice. Further it is to be noticed that under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, this court cannot sit as an appellate authority over the ﬁndings in the departmental enquiry or the ﬁndings reached by the Tribunal. The Tribunal is the authority under Section 11-A of the Act to re- appreciate the evidence available on record. 5. From a perusal of the impugned award, it could be seen that the Tribunal by simply noting the contents of the documents and by not deciding the validity of the domestic enquiry and also by not re-appreciating the entire evidence available on record, held t hat “I consider that the charges against the petitioner are proved and the punishment of removal of the petitioner from the service is in proportion to the charges.” The creptic order of the Tribunal by not exercising the jurisdiction under Section 11-A of the Act, cannot be appreciated and the matter requires to be remitted back for fresh disposal. 6. A learned single Judge of this court in P.F.KHAN E.406046 v. DEPOT MANAGER APSRTC[2] 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.” 7. Another learned single Judge of this court in K.SHANKARAIAH v. THE INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL – CUM – LABOUR COURT REP. ITS PRESIDING OFFICER (W.P.No.13241/2001 dated 7.2.2008) 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.” 8. 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. 9. 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 in exercise of jurisdiction under Section 11-A of the Act within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs. AVS ---------------------------------------- 15—11—2008 [1] AIR 1975 S.C. 1900 [2] 2008(3) ALT 234