ORDER
1. The management of the A.P.S.R.T.C. has filed this writ petition questioning the correctness of the award dated August 27, 1994 made by the Additional Industrial Tribunal-cum-Additional Labour Court, Hyderabad, the First Respondent herein, in I.D. No. 642 of 1993 directing reinstatement of the second respondent into service and further directing to entrust to the second respondent only such work which he can perform with his hands. This last direction to entrust the work to the second respondent “only such kind of work which he can perform with his hands” came to be issued by the Industrial Court, in view of the fact that in an accident, the second respondent suffered grievous injuries and both his legs were amputated.
2. Before the Industrial Court, the petitioner Corporation did not choose to lead any evidence nor produce the domestic enquiry papers. Therefore, the learned Presiding Officer after considering the plea of the workman-second respondent coupled with the fact of non production of enquiry papers and total lack of any evidence adduced by the Corporation, made the impugned award.
3. Sri. Gangirami Reddy, the learned Standing Counsel for the Corporation would contend that the Industrial Court should have passed the award on merits but the award was passed without looking into the materials on record and solely for the reason of the absence of the learned Counsel representing the Corporation. Further the learned Counsel would contend that in a claim laid by the second respondent-workman under the provisions of the Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1927 (for short ‘the Act’) the Labour Commissioner awarded the compensation for the injuries/disabilities suffered by the second respondent and the second respondent has availed of the same. From that angle also, there was no justification for the Industrial Court to pass the impugned award directing reinstatement with full back-wages. These are the only two grounds advanced on behalf of the Petitioner-Corporation.
4. The two grounds sought to be advanced before the Court by the learned Counsel for the petitioner-Corporation cannot be permitted to he advanced at this stage for more than one reason. It is relevant to note that admittedly before the Labour Court, the domestic enquiry papers weie not produced. No evidence was led by the Corporation to bring home the charge levelled against the second respondent. The workman in his claim statement questioned not only the final order made by the disciplinary authority but also the very validity of the domestic enquiry conducted by the Corporation. The Labour Court quite obviously could not decide the validity of the domestic enquiry after perusing the domestic enquiry papers because they were clever made available to the Labour Court. Therefore, the Labour Court proceeded to consider the said claim of the workman on the basis of the evidence of the workman. Therefore, it cannot be said that the Labour Court committed any material irregularity in the matter of procedure or any illegality in passing the final impugned award.
5. The other contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that the Second Respondent laid a claim before the Commissioner of Labour under the provisions of the Act and obtained an order in his favour and therefore he is not entitled to any other reliefs and he cannot be permitted to agitate the same at this stage. There is nothing on record to show that such a contention was raised before the Industrial Court. Whether the workman laid a claim before the Commissioner of Labour under the provisions of the Act or whether he has received compensation under the said Act is a pure question of fact and such a question cannot be permitted to be raised at this stage.
6. Before concluding, an earnest appeal was made by the learned Standing Counsel that on account of the impugned award, the Corporation was made to suffer an injury unwarranted by the facts-situation of the case and this has so happened because of the failure of the learned Counsel to appear before the Court, whose services werg engaged by the Corporation to defend its action before the Industrial Court. This statement of the learned Standing Counsel is not appealable to the Court. If there is a deliberate or intentional lapse on the part of the learned Counsel, who represented the case of the Corporation before the Industrial Court, he should be made liable for whatever loss the Corporation has incurred in suffering the impugned award. On the other hand, if there was any justifiable ground for the Counse in not appearing before the Industrial Cour and the claim of the Second Respondent wen uncontested, it was open to the Corporation aticas to file the affidavit of the learned Counsel before this Court elaborating the circumstances under which he could not represent the case of the Corporation. Such a course was not adopted by the Corporation by filing any such affidavit.
7. In the result and for the foregoing reasons, I do not find any merit in the writ petition. The writ petition fails and it is accordingly dismissed No costs.