IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE TENTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 22621 of 2007 Between: Patan Hyath Khan, s/o. P.M. Khan, Muslim, Mazid Street, Chinnaganjam (P.O. & Mandal) Prakasam District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 Labour Court, Guntur, Rep by its Presiding Officer. 2 The Depot Manager, Kandukur Depot, APSRTC, Kandukur, Prakasam District. 3 The Regional Manager, APSRTC., Ongole, Prakasam District. .....RESPONDENT(S Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to issue an order or direction, more in the nature of Writ of Certiorari, calling for the records pertaining to ID No. 101/2000 dated 4- 11-2004 on the file of the 1st respondent which was published on 26-2- 2005 and quash the same in so far as to the extent it denied the relief of back wages, continuity of service and all other attendant benefits as illegal, unjust and contrary to law and consequently direct the respondents 2 and 3 to give continuity of service, back wages and all other attendant benefits together with interest @ 12% per annum, grant costs of the proceedings and pass such other and further order or orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.M.PITCHAIAH Counsel for the Respondent No.1: GP FOR LABOUR Counsel for Respondents 2 and 3: Sri C.Prakash Reddy The Court made the following : ORDER: The petitioner was employed as Cleaner in APSRTC, in the year 1990. He was removed from service through order, dated 12.05.1997, on the ground that he was unauthorisedly absent from 16.04.1996 to 15.06.1996. After exhausting the remedies of appeal and review unsuccessfully, the petitioner approached the Labour Court, Guntur, by filing I.D.No.101 of 2000. The Labour Court passed an award, dated 04.11.2004, setting aside the order of removal and directed reinstatement of the petitioner without back wages and without continuity of service. The petitioner feels aggrieved by the denial of back wages and continuity of service. Sri M.Pitchaiah, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that the Labour Court itself was satisfied that the punishment imposed against the petitioner was disproportionate, and in that view of the matter, denial of past service, in all respects, cannot be sustained in law. He contends that when the Enquiry Officer himself found that the absence of the petitioner was covered by medical certificate, there was no basis either for removal from service by the appointing authority, or denial of benefit by the Labour Court. Sri C.Prakash Reddy, learned counsel for respondents 2 and 3, on the other hand, submits that the petitioner cannot claim medical leave as of right and he did not satisfy the authorities of the Corporation, or the Labour Court, as to the cause of absence. He contends that when plenty of Medical Officers are available in the Corporation, the petitioner has chosen to remain absent on the basis of a medical certificate said to have been issued by a private Medical Practitioner in his village. It is a matter of record that the petitioner remained absent from 16.04.1996 to 15.06.1996. Initially he is said to have forwarded a medical certificate, dated 18.04.1996, with a request to grant medical leave up to 10.05.1996. There would have been some justification for him to rely upon the said medical certificate, had he reported to duty on 10.05.1996, or sought extension of medical leave duly stating the reasons. He has not chosen to do so. He reported to duty on 15.06.1996 and only on 03.07.1996, he came forward with another medical certificate. It is not without any object that the Corporation not only had Medical Officers in the respective Depots, but also a hospital at Hyderabad, with facilities for treatment of all ailments. It is not the case of the petitioner that he has suddenly fallen ill seriously and that he was unable to approach the Medical Officer or go to the hospital of the Corporation or to appraise his employer about the nature of ailment. The record placed before this Court is silent, as to the nature of ailment said to have been suffered by the petitioner. The Corporation framed Leave Rules prescribing the procedure for processing the leave applications on medical grounds. The purport thereof cannot be interpreted to such an extent that an employee can feel free to remain absent, his discretion, under the guise of medical leave. Before requiring the concerned authority to process the application, the employee must be clear as to the nature of ailment and the justification for remaining absent based on the medical opinion. All these aspects are blissfully silent in the case of the petitioner. The Labour Court itself arrived at a conclusion that the absence of the petitioner for the period, referred to above, was unauthorized. It took a compassionate view upon the petitioner and directed reinstatement, on the assumption that the punishment inflicted upon the petitioner is disproportionate. The petitioner cannot be said to have suffered any detriment on account of that. Though this Court is satisfied that the petitioner is not entitled for back wages on being reinstated, denial of the benefit of the past service, in its entirety, would result in hardship. If not for other benefits, the petitioner shall be entitled to be extended the benefit of service for pension and other related benefits. Hence the Writ Petition is partly allowed, modifying the award passed by the Labour Court in I.D.No.101 of 2000 to the extent that the petitioner shall be entitled to the benefit of service limited to the retirement benefits and not others. There shall be no order as to costs. ____________________ Dt.10.03.2008 L.NARASIMHA REDDY, J GJ