These two writ petitions are disposed of through this common order. The former writ petition in W.P.No.2800 of 2003 was laid by the employer against the workman. W.P.No.20276 of 2005, which is the latter writ petition, was filed by the workman against the employer. In both the cases, the award of the Industrial Tribunal-II, Hyderabad (the Tribunal, for short), dated 30-3-2002 in I.D.No.179 of 2000 is questioned.

Hence, both the writ petitions are disposed of through this common order.

2. The employer is a manufacturer of Engine Valves supplied to the automobile industry. About 250 workers have been engaged by the employer. The workman, by name N.Krishna was one among them.

3. The workman was appointed on casual basis from 02-6-1987 till 02-8-1987. The employer later took the workman as a trainee from 03-8-1987 till 03-8-1989. He was put on probation for a period of one year on 03-8-1989. Subsequently, the probation of the workman was declared.

4. A charge-sheet was issued to the workman on the ground that he was guilty of low production.

He was dismissed from service on 28-01-1993. However, a settlement was arrived at between the employer and the workman on 21-7-1994 under Section 18(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (the Act, for short), consequent upon which the workman was reinstated as a fresh employee. On 25-4-1994, a fresh charge-sheet was issued against the workman on the ground that he was unauthorisedly absent without intimation to the reliever. The workman was allegedly absent for various dates between 28-02-1994 and 24-8-1994. A domestic enquiry was conducted against the workman.

In the meanwhile, another charge-sheet was issued to the workman on 28-01-1995 that he willfully indulged in low production. In respect of unauthorized absence from duty, the workman was found guilty through the enquiry report dated 10-3-1995. He was found guilty for low production through enquiry report dated 30-6-1995.

5. A combined Show Cause Notice was issued to the workman on 07-8-1995. On 22-8-1995, the workman offered his explanation. Not satisfied with the explanation offered by the workman, the Disciplinary Authority passed orders dismissing the workman through orders dated 04-11-1995. However, industrial dispute in I.D.No.103 of 1994 was pending before the Tribunal by then. Consequently, the employer filed M.P.No.1 of 1996 under Section 33(2)(b) of the Act before the Tribunal. On 10-12-1997, the Tribunal held that the enquiries were properly conducted. On 16-02-1998, M.P.No.1 of 1996 was allowed. Assailing the same, the workman raised I.D.No.59 of 1998 under Section 2-A(2) of the Act before Labour Court-III, Hyderabad. The same was subsequently transferred to Labour Court-I, Hyderabad and was renumbered as I.D.435 of 2000.

It was again transferred to Industrial Tribunal-II, Hyderabad and was renumbered as I.D.179 of 2000.

6. In I.D.No.179 of 2000, the Tribunal held on 06-12-2001 that the enquiry was properly conducted. The Tribunal, however, held that the findings were perverse. Consequently, the workman was ordered to be reinstated without back wages, continuity of service and attendant benefits, so much so, the Tribunal ordered the reinstatement of the workman as a fresh candidate. Questioning the award, the employer filed W.P.No.2800 of 2003 contending that once orders were passed in M.P.No.1 of 1996 under Section 33(2)(b) of the Act, I.D.No.179 of 2000 is not maintainable. The workman, in his turn, filed W.P.No.20276 of 2005 contending that when the order of the Enquiry Officer was perverse, the Tribunal ought to have ordered reinstatement of the workman with back wages.

7. The learned counsel for both sides are in advantageous position in each turn since they appeared before the Tribunal in M.P.No.1 of 1996 as well as I.D.No.179 of 2000. Sri S.Ravindranath, learned counsel for the employer, contended that the only question that can be considered under Section 33 of the Act is whether there was proper enquiry or otherwi