TECHNO ELECTRICS Vs. CHAIRMAN CUM PRESIDING OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These two writ petitions are filed challenging the award dated 26-03-2010 passed by the Additional Industrial Tribunal-cum-Additional Labour Court, Hyderabad (for short 'the Labour Court'), in I.D. No. 104 of 2009, which in turn was published in G.O. Rt. No. 465 of 2009, Labour Employment Training and Factories (LAB.I) Department, dated 12-04-2010. For the sake of convenience, the parties herein are referred to, as arrayed in W.P. No. 12349 of 2010.

(2.) The brief facts are that, the 2nd Respondent (for short 'the Respondent') was employed as Security Guard by the Petitioner-company in the year 1987. He was dismissed from service on 30-03-2002. Aggrieved by that, the Respondent filed I.D. No. 38 of 2002 before the Labour Court. An award was passed on 10-11-2004 setting aside the order of dismissal and directing the appointment of the Respondent, afresh. The Petitioner, on the one hand, and the Respondent, on the other hand, filed W.P. Nos. 4704 and 10085 of 2005, respectively, challenging the award, to the extent they felt aggrieved by it. Both the writ petitions were dismissed, and writ appeal filed by the Respondent was rejected. The award was ultimately upheld by the Supreme Court in SLP (Civil) No. 2856 of 2009, on 13-07-2009.

(3.) The Respondent was appointed in pursuance of the award passed in I.D. No. 38 of 2002, even while proceedings were pending before the Courts. A charge-sheet dated 07-08-2006 was issued to him, alleging certain acts of misconduct. It is stated that the Respondent did not submit explanation to the same. Domestic enquiry was conducted ex parte, since he is said to have refused to participate. A report was submitted, stating that the charges framed against the Respondent are proved. Second show cause notice dated 12-11-2007 was issued proposing punishment of dismissal. Respondent submitted reply dated 16-11-2007. The Petitioner passed an order dated 12-07-2007, dismissing the Respondent from service.I.D. No. 104 of 2009 was filed against it.