JUDGMENT
1. The writ is filed for the issue of a writ of certiorari calling for the record from the first respondent and to quash the award in I.D. No. 141 of 1986, dated April 3, 1987, on the file of the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Warangal, and for a consequential direction to the second respondent to reinstate the petitioner in service with full backs wages and other a attendant benefits.
2. The petitioner, who was working as a conductor in APSRTC, was conducting the bus on the route Jannaram to Nirmal on January 3, 1984, and on a surprise check he was apprehended by the T.T.I.s at stage No. 17 and after spot inspection it was found that he had not issued tickets to 14 passengers. Thereupon, he was given a charge-sheet on January 13, 1984. The petitioner submitted his explanation and an enquiry was conducted and, ultimately, he was removed from service by an order dated April 29, 1984. The petitioner raised an Industrial Dispute and the matter was referred to the Industrial Tribunal for adjudication as per G.O. Rt. No. 2571, dated December 31, 1985, which was numbered as I.D. No. 141 of 1986 before the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Warangal.
3. The crucial point raised by the Learned Counsel for the petitioner, Sr. G. Bikshapathy, is that the first respondent has dwelt at length on the past record of the petitioner while coming to the conclusion that the order of removal is justified. In other words, what he says is that had the Tribunal not taken into consideration the past record of service of the petitioner, then the material on record would not have been enough for the Tribunal to come to the conclusion that the order of removal is justified in the facts and circumstances of the case.
4. To appreciate the above argument of the Learned Counsel, it would be necessary to have a close look at the provisions of Section 11-A of the Industrial Disputes Act which is in the following terms :
“11-A Power of Labour Courts, Tribunals and National Tribunal to give appropriate relief in case of discharge or dismissal of workman : Where an industrial dispute relating to the discharge or dismissal of a workman has been referred to a Labour Court, Tribunal or National Tribunal for adjudication and, in the course of the adjudication proceedings, the Labour Court, Tribunal or National Tribunal, as the case may be, is satisfied that the order of discharge or dismissal was not justified, it may, by its award, set aside the order of discharge or dismissal and direct reinstatement of the workman on such terms and conditions, if any, as it thinks fit, or give such other relief to the workman including the award of any lesser punishment in lieu of discharge or dismissal as the circumstances of the case may require :
Provided that in any proceedings under this section, the Labour Court, Tribunal or National Tribunal, as the case may be, shall rely only on the materials on record and shall not take any fresh evidence in relation to the matter.”
5. An analysis of this section shows that if the Labour Court is satisfied that the order of discharge or dismissal was not justified, it may, by its award, set aside the order of discharge or dismissal and direct reinstatement of the workman or give such other relief to the workman including the award of any lesser punishment in lieu of discharge or dismissal, as the circumstances of the case may require. The proviso to the said section is extremely important for the purpose of the case on hand which reads that in any proceeding under this section, the Labour Court shall rely only on the materials on record and shall not take any fresh evidence in relation to the matter. Therefore, the question is whether the past record of service comes within the category of “materials on record” for the purpose of this case. It is an undisputed fact that the past record of service was neither considered nor referred to by either the workman or the second respondent-corporation at the time of the enquiry against the petitioner. But the past record of service has been considered in a detailed fashion by the Labour Court while coming to the conclusion that the order of removal is justified in the circumstances of the case. In fact, about three full pages have been written about the past record of service of the petitioner. This past record of service is evidently not material on record as visualised in the proviso to Section 11-A. Therefore, the question is, would the Tribunal have come to the same conclusion, viz., that the order or removal is justified had it not looked into the past record of the petitioner. Suffice it to state that from the manner in which the award has been passed, it is easy to see that a lot of emphasis has been placed on the past record of service of the petitioner. The approach of the Industrial Tribunal was clearly wrong and not justified by the proviso to Section 11-A. The Labour Court should have come to the conclusion that the order of removal is justified only on the basis of the appreciation of the material on record and not by taking into consideration the past record of service of the petitioner. In this view of the matter, the award dated April 3, 1987, passed by the Labour Court in I.D. No. 141 of 1986 is set aside and the matter is remanded to the Industrial Tribunal for fresh consideration in accordance with the provision of Section 11-A of the Industrial Disputes Act. Especially the proviso to the said section, by taking into consideration only the materials on record and not the past record of service of the petitioner, The Labour Court may consider the matter and pass an award within two months from the date of receipt of this order.
6. The writ petition is, accordingly, allowed.
7. No costs.