ORDER
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. 139/1987 dated July 27, 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 December 14, 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 1 st respondent from service by an order dated March 31, 1979. The order of removal was confirmed in appeal and in review on October 13, 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 of 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 June 22, 1987. After notices were issued, the case was posted for the first time on July 25, 1987. On that date, both the petitioner as well as the 1 st respondent were absent. It was noted by the learned Presiding Officer that the counter was not filed. The case was then posted to July 27, 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 July 27, 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 full back-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 July 27, 1987, on that ground we are not inclined to penalise the statutory Corporation. On an overall 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 Petition pending for eight years. There is another serious legal infirmity in the award. The Tribunal is no doubt empowered to pass an award exparte. But, it does not mean that the relief should be granted to the claimant-workman as a matter of course, without a semblance of consideration or enquiry to the extent possible. The Domestic Enquiry Report or the order of the Disciplinary Authority which are the core documents were within the power of the workman to produce. The Tribunal could have called upon the claimant to produce the same and on a perusal thereof, if necessary, the Tribunal could have allowed the workman to adduce oral evidence. If as a result of such consideration or enquiry, it is found that the enquiry was invalid or that the workman was denied reasonable opportunity or that there was no material in support of the charges, the award could have been passed ex parte and appropriate relief be granted. It would have been also open to the Industrial Tribunal to rely on the fact that no rebuttal evidence was adduced or to draw an adverse inference for not producing the material documents which are within the custody of the Management. An ex parte award should not appear to be punitive in its purport. While passing an ex parte award, there is still scope for judicious consideration of the relevant aspects involved and there could be some application of mind to the merits of the charges or the punishment.
5. Considered from the above stand-point, the impugned award is liable to be set aside as suffering from a patent error of law. In view of the above discussion, the normal course would have been to set aside the award and to send it back to the Industrial Tnbunal for fresh disposal. But, as rightly pointed out by the learned Counsel for the 1st respondent-workman, it is better to put an end to this litigation rather than allowing it to roll by for another decade. Taking note of the fact that the workman had already been reinstated pursuant to the award more than eight years back, we are not inclined to set the clock back and keep this industrial dispute still alive. We have gone through the order of the Disciplinary Authority based on the domestic enquiry report. Judging it from the same stand point from which it should have been judged by the Labour Court, we are unable to say that the findings of the Disciplinary Authority are vitiated in any sense. All the aspects have been considered thoroughly by the Disciplinary Authority. In particular, the Conductor’s spot explanation, passengers’ statements, the evidence of the Checking Staff and the entries in the Statistical Return were all referred to by the Disciplinary Authority. We therefore hold that the charges against the 1st respondent workman are established.
6. The next question is about the quantum of punishment. In view of the fact that the 1st respondent had already been reinstated long back and he earned further promotion also and in view of some laches on the part of the Management in conducting the case before the Labour Court, we are not inclined to disturb the relief of rein-statement with continuity of service as granted by the Industrial Tribunal. As regards back-wages, it is pointed out by the learned Standing Counsel for the petitioner-Corporation that there was considerable delay in raising the Industrial Dispute and in view of the nature of the charges proved, it is not a fit case to allow back-wages. On an over all consideration, we are of the view that the back-wages should be restricted to l/3rd which this Court directed the petitioner to deposit during the pendency of the Writ Petition.
7. Subject to this modification, the award of the Industrial Tribunal is upheld, but for different reasons. The Writ Petition is thus partly allowed. No costs.