L. Narasimha Reddy, J.

1. The appellant herein was employed as Operator Trainee on 17.10.1975 in the Lamps Division of HMT Limited, Hyderabad. Thereafter, he worked in the Tunston Wire Drawing (TWD) Section between 1976 and 1985. During that time, he is said to have developed kidney problem and made a request to transfer him to other sections. Acceding to the request, he was transferred to Mercury Vapour Lamp Division in the year 1985. The appellant states that though the company has acquired know-how to manufacture MVL 85 and SVL lamps, and the product has a good market, the company started supplying the manufactured products to other companies such as GEC, Philips, Mysore lamps and that himself and another senior employee were protesting against the same. Another allegation made by him was that the persons in management have committed theft of Cattode Pasts Monogram worth Rs. 10,00,000/- and sold them to competitors and in relation to that, he took steps to unearth the fraud.

2. The appellant was transferred to Glass Division in the year 1994. He alleged that the transfer was effected, in spite of his complaint that the Head of that division was harassing him and that it is an act of victimisation.

3. The 3rd respondent issued a charge sheet, dated 19.05.1994 alleging that the appellant recorded his presence only by scratching the card in the electronic machine but did not report to duty to the Head of the Department. Another charge was that he forged the signature of his superior officer while submitting application for LTC. The appellant submitted his explanation on 27.05.1994. Not satisfied with that, a domestic enquiry was ordered. The enquiry officer submitted a report on 28.01.1995, holding that the first charge is proved and in the second charge, the allegation as to forgery is not proved.

4. The 3rd respondent passed an order, dated 09.06.1995 dismissing the appellant from service, after issuing a show cause notice. The appellant filed I.D. No. 1 of 2001 before the Industrial Tribunal-II, Hyderabad under Section 2A(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short 'the Act') challenging the order of dismissal. The Labour Court passed Nil award on 07.09.2001. Thereupon, the appellant filed W.P. No. 3244 of 2005. The writ petition was dismissed through order, dated 23.02.2005. Hence, this writ appeal.

5. Sri A.K. Jaya Prakash Rao, learned counsel for the appellant submits that though the appellant reported to duty according to the prescribed procedure, the first charge was framed as though there is a serious violation. He contends that the very grievance of the appellant was that the Head of the Glass Division was harassing him and that though the Manager of the HRD Section promised him to shift to another division, that was not done. He further submits that the appellant was a kidney patient and for his medical bills and other related purposes, he had to move from one section to another and that was treated as an act of loitering. He further submits that though the enquiry officer held that the charge as to forgery is not proved, the 3rd respondent proceeded as though charge No. 2 is also proved. Learned counsel further submits that even if both the charges are taken as proved, the punishment of dismissal from service of an employee, who has put in 20 years of service, cannot be sustained or justified in law. He contends that the Labour Court has deviated from the prescribed norms and virtually adopted a more vindictive approach than the employer. It is urged that the view taken by the learned Single Judge that the failure of the appellant to examine witnesses before the Labour Court is fatal to proceedings; cannot be sustained in law.

6. Sri D. Ravi Shankar Rao, learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, submits that the charges framed against the appellant are serious in nature and since both the charges are held proved, the 3rd respondent was left with no alternative except to impose the punishment