SHARMA, J. - (1.) ON a reference being made the Labour Court No. 2 Jaipur invoked the jurisdiction under Section 11-A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short the Act) and directed the respondent's reinstatement with continuity of service but without back wages. The petitioner in the instant writ petition seeks to quash the aforesaid award dated October 24, 2000 of the Labour Court No. 2 Jaipur.
(2.) I have heard the rival submissions and scanned the impugned award. Before proceeding further a look at section 11-A of the Act appears necessary which provides thus - " 11-A. Powers of Labour Courts, Tribunals and National Tribunals to give appropriate relief in case of discharge of 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, 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. " Evidently in arriving at the conclusion that the order of discharge or dismissal of the workman is not justified the Tribunal or the court has to rely on the materials on record and fresh evidence in relation to the matter is not required to be recorded but in the case on hand the Labour Court vide its order dated November 16, 1994 directed the petitioner to prove the charges levelled against the respondent workmen by adducing fresh evidence. Thereafter the petitioner filed the affidavits of Rajendra Kumar, Pabudan Singh, Ghud Mal Yadav, Subhash Chand Khatri and Jagdish Prasad. The respondent workman filed his counter affidavit. All the witnesses were subjected to cross examination. Since the impugned award is based on the fresh evidence recorded by the Labour Court it is against the mandate of Section 11-A of the Act. This illegality alone is sufficient for invoking powers under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Consequently, I allow the writ petition and set aside the impugned award dated October 24, 2000. I remit the case to the Labour Court No. 2 Jaipur to decide the matter afresh ignoring the evidence recorded by it pursuance to its order dated November 16, 1994 and placing reliance on the material which was already on record. The parties are directed to appear before the Labour Court No. 2 Jaipur on May 6, 2004 for seeking further instructions. A copy of this order be forwarded to Labour Court No. 2 Jaipur. .;