P. VENKATARAMA REDDI, J.

( 1 ) THE Depot Manager, A. P. S. R. T. C. ,nirmal Depot, has filed this Writ Petition questioning the award of the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Warangal in I. D. No. 139/87 dated 27-7-1987.

( 2 ) THE 1st respondent is a Conductor employed in A. P. S. R. T. C. on a check of the bus which he was conducting on 14-12-1978, serious irregularities were noticed by the Checking Staff. The charges framed against the 1st respondent are as follows: (i) For violating the rule issue and start ; (ii) Failed to collect the fare and issue tickets to six passengers who were found travelling without tickets from Bainsa to Mudhole Ex-Stages 13 to 17; (iii) Issued tickets to eight passengers of Rs. 1. 80 denomination which were issued earlier and altered the Statistical Return.

( 3 ) THE Disciplinary Authority agreed with the domestic enquiry report and on an elaborate consideration held the charges proved on the basis of the evidence and material on record. The Disciplinary Authority removed the 1st respondent from service by an order dated 31-3-1979. The order of removal was confirmed in appeal and in review on 13-10-1982. Nearly four years later, the first respondent raised an Industrial Dispute by approaching the conciliation Officer (Assistant Commissioner of Labour ). The exact date of the petition filed before the Conciliation Officer is not known. On the basis ot the report of the Assistant Commissioner of Labour, the Deputy commissioner of Labour, Warangal, referred the dispute for adjudication to the Labour Court, Warangal, in exercise of power under Section 10 (1) (c) of the Industrial Disputes Act, The claim statement was filed by the workman on 22-6-1987. After notices were issued, the case was posted for the first time on 25-7-1987. On that date, both the petitioner as well as the 1st respondent were absent. It was noted by the learned Presiding Officer that the counter was not filed. The case was then posted to 27-7-1987. On that date, the management s representative was not present. After hearing the arguments of the workman s Counsel (which are of course not mentioned in the impugned order), the following cryptic order was passed by the Industrial Tribunal on. 27-7-1987. "petitioner is absent. Respondent is absent. Heard Petitioner s Counsel. Respondent failed to appear in Court and justify the removal by filing counter and Domestic Enquiry Report. Hence the respondent is directed to reinstate the petitioner into service with fullback-wages and continuity of service. The General Manager shall recover the back-wages paid to petitioner from the Depot Manager. The Government should send a copy of the award to General Manager, A. P. S. R. T. C. , Hyderabad. "

( 4 ) IT is against this award the present Writ Petition is filed by the management of the A. P. S. R. T. C. In the affidavit filed in support of the Writ petition, it is stated that on account of inordinate delay in seeking reference, the records could not be placed in time and the counter could not be filed. We find some justification for this explanation. It may be noticed that the time- gap between the date of filing of the claim petition and the date of disposal is one month. On the first occasion, both the parties were absent. Two days later, the arguments of the workman s Counsel were heard and the impugned award was passed. Though no explanation is forthcoming for the absence of the Management s representative on 27-7-1987, on that ground we are not inclined to penalise the statutory Corporation. On an over-all consideration, we are of the view that atleast one more opportunity should have been given to the Management. It is true that the Management could have filed a petition to set aside the ex parte award by showing sufficient cause for the absence and omission to produce the record. However, this unexplained omission on the part of the Management ought not be put against them at this long distance of time after keeping the Writ Peti

Click Here to Read the rest of this document