JUDGMENT : A. Abhishek Reddy, J. 1. These two writ appeals are filed against the common Order, dated 18.04.2017, passed by a learned Single Judge in W.P. Nos. 19992 of 2006 and 24147 of 2016, whereby the learned Single Judge has dismissed both the writ petitions filed by the appellants. 2. The parties are hereinafter referred to as they are arrayed in the Industrial Dispute No. 148 of 2004 before the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Godavarikhani. 3. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner-employee was initially appointed as Badli Filler; subsequently, he was promoted as Coal Filler in the respondent-Company. On 12.02.1998, the petitioner-employee was issued with a charge-sheet regarding his unauthorized absence. According to the petitioner-employee, in the year 1997, due to medical ailments, he had fallen short of 100 musters. But upon submission of the medical certificate, he was taken on duty. Thereafter, in the year 1998, he had put in 208 physical musters. Basing on the domestic Enquiry Report, the petitioner-employee was dismissed from service, vide Order, dated 09.12.1998. Thereafter, a Settlement, dated 21.02.2000, was arrived between the respondent-Company and the Union According to the Settlement, the cases of the employees who were dismissed on account of absenteeism between 01.01.1997 to 31.12.1999 were reconsidered; they were appointed as Badli Fillers for a period of one year, on trial basis, with a condition that on such re-employment they should put in satisfactory attendance of 190 actual musters in an year (trial period), failing which their services would be terminated at the end of the year without any notice. According to the said Settlement, the petitioner was reinstated as Badli Filler for a period of one year by virtue of Order, dated 28.06.2001. However, as the petitioner did not put in the required musters, he was dismissed vide orders, dated 19.10.2002. Challenging the same, the petitioner filed I.D. No. 148 of 2004 under Section 2-A(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The Labour Court, after going through the medical certificates submitted by the employee, concluded that the dismissal of the petitioner-employee from service is shockingly disproportionate to the alleged misconduct. Therefore, the Tribunal while setting aside the dismissal orders, dated 05.11.1998 and 19.10.2002, directed the respondent-Company to reinstate the petitioner-employee into service as Coal Filler with continuity of service, but without back-wages, and by withholding two annual increments with the effect of postponing his future increments. Therefore, the Tribunal while setting aside the dismissal orders, dated 05.11.1998 and 19.10.2002, directed the respondent-Company to reinstate the petitioner-employee into service as Coal Filler with continuity of service, but without back-wages, and by withholding two annual increments with the effect of postponing his future increments. Aggrieved by the said order, the respondents-Company filed W.P. No. 19992 of 2006. Further, questioning the Order, dated 16.02.2016 passed in E.P. No. 16 of 2014 and the consequential order, dated 07.06.2016 passed in E.A. No. 2 of 2016 in E.P. No. 16 of 2014 in I.D. No. 148 of 2004, the respondent-Company filed another writ petition bearing W.P. No. 24147 of 2016. The learned Single Judge while deciding the above cases has framed the following two issues: (a) Whether the I.D. No. 148 of 2004 is maintainable, or the 2nd respondent is estopped from raising a dispute under Section 2-A(2) of the Act? (b) Whether the 1st respondent has properly exercised its jurisdiction under Section 11-A of the Act while modifying the punishment? After hearing both the parties and considering the material on record, the learned Single Judge held that I.D. No. 148 of 2004 is maintainable. For, there was no estoppel to raise the dispute by the employee under Section 2-A of the Act in view of the Settlement arrived on 24.02.2000. The learned Single Judge also negatived the contention of the respondent-Company that the I.D. itself was not maintainable in view of the Settlement reached between the parties and the subsequent re-employment, and also the said plea was not taken before the Industrial Tribunal. Thereby, the learned Single Judge dismissed W.P. No. 19992 of 2006. Consequently, the other writ petition, namely W.P. No. 24147 of 2016 was also dismissed by the learned Single Judge. Aggrieved by this common Order, the respondent-Company has preferred these two Writ Appeals. 4. As there was a direction to pay the wages under Section 17-B of the Act to the employee as Badli Filler, both during the pendency of the writ petition and the writ appeal, this Court at the time of admission of W.A. No. 1436 of 2017, had granted interim suspension by order, dated 22.09.2017, subject to the appellants continuing to pay the same till the disposal of the ID. 5. 5. The grounds urged by the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the appellants are as under:- (a) Firstly, the very approach of the learned Single Judge and also the Labour Court in entertaining the I.D. itself is bad as the cause of action for filing the I.D. was not there. Moreover, in view of the Settlement reached by the Union and the Company, the employee was reinstated as a Badli Filler; the terms of reemployment were binding on the said employee. Moreover, once he was reinstated, he cannot fall back on the earlier dismissal order and challenge the same. (b) Secondly, the direction given by the Labour Court to reinstate the employee as a Coal Filler is also bad as the employee was reinstated as Badli Filler and he was dismissed from service since he had not put in the minimum required musters as per the terms and conditions of re-employment. (c) Thirdly, the order of the initial dismissal in the year 1998 merges with the Settlement reached between the Union and the Company. Further, the employee was reinstated on the basis of the Settlement. Subsequently, having failed to adhere to the terms of the Settlement, the employee is estopped from challenging his dismissal. (d) Lastly, that the Labour Court did not take into consideration the specific plea of the Company that the employee had put in only 94 musters as against the required 190 musters. Thus, the termination was automatic; there is no discussion by the Labour Court on the said aspect. 6. On the other hand, the learned Counsel appearing for the respondent-employee has vehemently argued that the order of the Labour Court as well as the learned Single Judge are perfectly legal. Having found that the initial termination order imposing the punishment of dismissal from service given to the employee in the year 1998 was disproportionate to the alleged misconduct, the Labour Court has reduced the same. The learned Single Judge has also rightly not interfered with the said order. The contention of the Company that the employee was estopped from raising the Industrial Dispute questioning the termination passed in the year 1998 because of the Settlement reached by the Union and the Company is also not correct as the said plea was not taken before the Industrial Tribunal. 7. The contention of the Company that the employee was estopped from raising the Industrial Dispute questioning the termination passed in the year 1998 because of the Settlement reached by the Union and the Company is also not correct as the said plea was not taken before the Industrial Tribunal. 7. Heard Sri J. Sreenivasa Rao, the learned Standing Counsel for the appellants, and Sri P. Sreedhar Rao, the learned counsel for the respondent-employee, and perused the record. 8. Admittedly, the petitioner-employee was initially appointed as Badli Filler; subsequently he was promoted as Coal Filler. Due to the regular absenteeism from the duties, and for not putting the required musters, the petitioner-employee was dismissed from service after conducting due Enquiry, and after giving him the full opportunity of participating in the Enquiry, in the year 1998. The employee did not question the dismissal order immediately after his termination, but kept quiet for the reasons best known to him. Subsequently, a Settlement was reached between the Company and the Union, to reinstate the employees who were dismissed for absenteeism between 01.01.1997 to 31.12.1999 as Badli Fillers with a specific condition that they should put in minimum of 190 musters for a period of one year (trial basis). If they do not put in the said minimum of 190 musters, extension will not be given and the termination will be automatic without any notice to the said employee. As the petitioner-employee, who was reinstated as Badli Filler pursuant to the above referred Settlement, has only put in 94 musters out of the required 190 musters, no extension was given to him. He was automatically terminated from service, vide order, dated 19.10.2002. Then the petitioner has chosen to challenge the initial termination Order, dated 05.11.1998, and also the subsequent termination order, dated 19.10.2002, in the year 2004. A perusal of the order of the Labour Court clearly reveals that the Labour Court did not deal with the issue as to whether the petitioner is estopped from challenging the dismissal order of the year 1998 in view of the subsequent Settlement reached between the Union and the Company, pursuant to which the employee was re-instated with the specific condition that his reinstatement is for a temporary period of one year (trial period), and that he has to put in 190 musters. Without any discussion on the said issue, the Labour Court on one hand has given a finding that the petitioner-employee was given a fair opportunity to participate in the Enquiry and submit his statement. Thus, the Domestic Enquiry conducted by the respondent-Company is a valid one. However, the Labour Court has gone into the matter, dealt with the punishment and held that the dismissal of the petitioner-employee from the service was disproportionate to the alleged misconduct. When once the petitioner-employee was given a fair hearing in the Enquiry, and was also given an opportunity to participate in the said Enquiry, whether the finding regarding the dis-proportionality of the punishment could have been gone into by the Labour Court in view of the subsequent settlement reached between the Union and the Company, and the reinstatement of the employee with specific conditions, is a matter which has to be dealt with by the Labour Court. 9. Having regard to the same, we deem it appropriate to remit the matter back to the Labour Court to decide the said issue basing on the pleadings and evidence submitted by the parties. 10. Accordingly, both the Writ Appeals are allowed, the impugned common order passed in both the writ petitions is hereby set aside, and matter is remanded back to the Labour Court to decide the issue as to whether the I.D. filed by the petitioner-employee with regard to dismissal order, dated 05.11.1998/09.12.1998, is valid in view of the subsequent reinstatement made in the year 2000 within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. There shall be no order as to costs.