THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU WRIT PETITION No.3274 of 2005 Dated: 08.06.2010 Between: APSRTC, rep. by its Managing Director, Musheerabad, Hyderabad, And another. .. Petitioners. And The Labour Court, Anantapur, Rep. by its Presiding Officer, And another. .. Respondents. ORDER: This writ petition is directed against the award dated 30.01.2004 passed by the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Anantapur, in I.D.No.31 of 2004. Petitioners are the management and 2nd respondent is the workman. It appears, while the 2nd respondent was working as driver in Rajampet Depot of Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation, a report dated 28.05.1998 was submitted by Traffic Inspector Grade-II of Rajampet Depot, for his unauthorized absence to duties on 27.05.1998. Thereupon, he was issued with a charge sheet enumerating the following charges: “1.For having absented to your chartered duty of 15-00 hrs., Cuddapah on 27.5.98 after signed in the control chart you are intentionally escaped for the duty without prior sanction of leave from the depot authorities, later you have submitted sick and fit certificate all at time on 28.5.98 issued by RTC clinic/Rajampet to cover-up the absence on 27.5.98 which constitutes misconduct under Reg. 28 (xxvii) of APSRTC Employees (conduct) Reg. 1963. 2. For having held responsible of Rs.2200/- loss of legitimate revenues to the Corporation of 15-00 hrs., Cuddapah on 27.5.98 for want of driver which constitutes misconduct as per Reg. 28 (ix-a) of APSRTC Employees (conduct) Reg. 1963.” The 2nd respondent submitted his explanation stating that as he was suffering from loose motions, he requested the management to grant leave, but leave was not granted, and therefore, he signed in the duty chart and went to perform duty and fell unconscious in the bus station, due to which the other staff members have admitted him to Hospital. However, having not satisfied with the said explanation, a detailed enquiry was initiated for the charges leveled against him and the same was completed in accordance with law. However, the management, after keeping the matter in abeyance for a sufficient long time, by order dated 31.10.2000 removed the 2nd respondent from service, alleging that he was again absent to duties on 03.07.1999 for his chartered duty 12-30 hours and continued to be absent till 05.07.1999, that he submitted a sick certificate on 11.03.2000 and 12.03.2000 and left the headquarters without permission, that he was absent to duties from 17.10.2000 to 30.10.2000 and produced a sick certificate beyond 48 hours. Aggrieved thereby, the 2nd respondent preferred the appeal and the review petition and they were dismissed. Thereafter, he filed a claim petition, under Section 2-A (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, before the Industrial Tribunal-cum- Labour Court, Anantapur, and the same was numbered as I.D.No.31 of 2004. It was the case of the workman before the Labour Court that he had put in 11 years of service, that as he fell unconscious in the bus station on 27.05.1998 due to his ill-health, he was admitted to hospital, and therefore he could not perform his duties on that day, that as far as subsequent allegation of absenteeism is concerned, no charge sheet was issued and no enquiry was conducted thereto, that when he was sick on subsequent occasion, he submitted a medical certificate, but that was not considered and, therefore, the punishment awarded by the management is disproportionate to that of the alleged misconduct. It was the case of the management that after signing the chart, the workman did not attend to duties, that there was no improvement in the attendance of the workman, that the workman was reporting sick even on subsequent occasions, that the workman was censured on three occasions and his annual grade increments were deferred on five occasions for his unauthorized absenteeism and, therefore, the management has rightly passed the order dated 31.10.2000 removing the workman from service. Before the Labour Court, no oral and documentary evidence was adduced on either side. The Labour Court, after considering the matter in detail, held that the punishment imposed on the workman is not justified, but however, considering the previous conduct of the workman, passed the impugned award dated 30.01.2004, setting aside the order of removal and directing the management to reinstate the workman into service with continuity of service, but with half of the backwages till the date of reinstatement. Aggrieved thereby, the present writ petition is filed by the management. Heard the learned counsel and perused the impugned award and other material made available on record. The plea of the workman was that though he was suffering from ill-health, he went to attend to duties on 27.05.1998, as his request for granting leave was not accepted, and after his signing in the control chart, he fell unconscious in the bus station and therefore he could not attend to duties on that day. This plea was not in dispute. Admittedly, the workman produced a medical certificate in support of his suffering from ill-health. As per the Regulations issued by the Corporation with regard to the leave of the employees, if the medical certificate produced by an employee is not accepted, such certificate should be referred to the competent Medical Officer for investigation. In the case on hand, the medical certificate of the workman was not referred to the competent Medical Officer for investigation and report, and as such, there is no contra medical opinion on the medical certificate produced by the workman. So far as subsequent absenteeism is concerned, admittedly no charge sheet was issued thereto, but however, the workman submitted medical certificates for absence from 11.03.2000 to 12.03.2000 and also for absence from 20.10.2000 to 30.10.2000. This apart, the charge framed against the workman is not grave in nature, so as to impose the punishment of removal, and the management could have recovered the loss caused to the Corporation on account of the absence of the workman. In these circumstances, I am of the considered opinion that the Labour Court has viewed the matter in right perspective and the impugned award does not call for interference of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. ______________ C.V.RAMULU,J 08.06.2010 v v