THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A.V. SESHA SAI WRIT PETITION No.11684 of 1998 Between:
1. The Chairman, A.P.S.E.B., Vidyut Soudha, Somajiguda, Hyderabad, and others.
PETITIONERS AND
1. The Labour Court-II, A.P., Hyderabad, and another.
RESPONDENTS ORDER:
This writ petition, filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, challenges the Award vide I.D.No.216 of 1993, dated 01.04.1997 on the file of the Labour Court-II, A.P., Hyderabad.
2. Heard Sri P. Lakshma Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Government Pleader for Labour for the 1st respondent.
3. The 2nd respondent filed I.D.No.216 of 1993 before the Labour Court-II, A.P., Hyderabad, questioning the oral termination order dated 01.01.1980 passed by the petitioners herein. In the said Industrial Dispute, the 2nd respondent also sought a direction to the petitioners herein to reinstate him into service with all attendant benefits and continuity of service and full back wages. During the course of enquiry before the Labour Court, the 2nd respondent herein examined himself as WW1 and also got examined WWs.2 and 3 on his behalf and marked Exs.W.1 to W.9. On the management side nobody was examined nor any documents were filed. The learned Presiding Officer by virtue of the impugned award dated 01.04.1997 allowed the said Industrial Dispute, declaring that the 2nd respondent herein is entitled to be reinstated into service as a fresh candidate with continuity of service but without any other benefits, like back-wages etc.
4. Assailing the said Award dated 01.04.1997 passed by the Labour Court-II, the present writ petition came to be filed.
5. In the present writ petition, principally the contentions of the learned counsel for the petitioners are that the order passed by the learned Presiding Officer is not in conformity with the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and the impugned order is violative of principles of natural justice.
6. In the above background, the question that emerges for consideration of this Court is – whether the award passed by the learned Presiding Officer, which is impugned in the present writ petition, is in accordance with law and whether the same requires any correction by this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
7. A perusal of the impugned award manifestly shows that the petitioners herein did not examine anybody nor filed any documents in support of their case. On the other hand, the 2nd respondent-workman examined himself as WW.1 and also examined his co-workers as WWs.2 and 3 and also filed documents Exs.W.1 to W.9 to substantiate his case. The learned Presiding Officer, on analysis of the material available before the Court, obviously, came to the conclusion that the 2nd respondent herein is entitled for the relief of reinstatement with continuity of service. A reading of the order passed by the learned Presiding Officer clearly and categorically discloses that the learned Presiding Officer assigned cogent and convincing reasons in arriving at such conclusion in favour of the 2nd respondent-workman.
8. It may be noted that the petitioners herein are seeking a writ of Certiorari in the instant case. It is a settled and well established proposition of law that unless the order impugned suffers from patent perversity and fundamental infirmity, issuance of a writ of this nature is impermissible. In the instant case, the material before this Court does not disclose any such fundamental infirmity in the impugned Award. In the absence of the same, this Court is neither persuaded nor inclined to meddle with the order passed by the learned Presiding Officer.
9. For the aforesaid reasons, the writ petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, if any, stands closed.
JUSTICE A.V. SESHA SAI.
19th November, 2014 Js.