IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE SECOND DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH WRIT PETITION NO : 13132 of 2004 Between: Bongoni Veeraiah S/o. Kanakaiah R/o.9-8-24 Ramnagar, Karimnagar. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Chairman-Cum-Presiding Officer Industrial Tribunal -Cum- Labour Court, Godavarikhani, Karimnagar District. 2 The Depot Manager APSRTC Metpalli (Post and Mandal) Karimnagar 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 writ more particularly a writ of certiorari and call for the records pertaining to the impugned award passed in I.D.No.86 of 1999 on dated 4.5.2001 passed on the file of the learned Presiding Officer Cum-Chairman, Industrial Tribunal-Cum-Labour Court, Godavari Khani in Karimnagar District and quash the same being arbitrary, illegal and violative of principles of natural justice and equity and consequently direct the respondents No.2 to reinstate the petitioner into service as Driver with all attendant benefits including continuity of service in the interest of justice. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.RAMACHANDAR RAO VEMUGANTI Counsel for the Respondent : SMT.P.RAJANI REDDY FOR RVAK-2 The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH WRIT PETITION No : 13132 of 2004 ORDER: Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondents. The petitioner was appointed as daily wage driver in the respondent-Corporation on 20.1.1997 and was removed from service on 26.8.1998 on the ground that he produced bogus driving licence. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner raised an Industrial Dispute by way of I.D.No.86 of 1999 on the file of the Chairman, Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Godavarikhani, which was dismissed by award dated 4.5.2001. Aggrieved by which, the petitioner filed this writ petition. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Labour Court passed an award dismissing the I.D confirming the order of removal passed by the management against the petitioner, without appreciating the evidence on record. He submitted that the petitioner had produced the driving licence issued by the competent authority, based on which, he was appointed as a Driver on daily wage basis and he worked as such. While so, the petitioner was removed from service by order dated 25.9.2008 issued by the Depot Manager, Metpallly only on the ground that the driving licence produced by the petitioner was not issued by the competent authority and the same was not genuine. No other reasoning has been given by the management. Therefore, he raised the ID by way of filing a petition under Section 2-A (2) of the Industrial Dispute Act, questioning the order of removal. Though the learned Labour Court marked Ex.M.1 to M.10 on behalf of the management, but without discussing the same, simply confirmed the order of removal and consequently, dismissed the I.D. Therefore, he submitted that the impugned award is liable to be set aside, as the learned Labour Court failed to exercise the powers under Section 11- A of the I.D Act, which is the final authority under the Act with reference to considering the total facts and circumstances of the case. Therefore, he submits that the petitioner is entitled for the reinstatement. The learned Standing Counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent submitted that the petitioner was one of the candidates, selected provisionally to the post of Driver on daily wage basis by proceedings dated 8.1.1997. At the time of issuing the appointment orders, the petitioner produced all the relevant documents including the driving licence. After the appointment of the petitioner, the said driving licence, was sent for verification to the licencing authority i.e. the Regional Transport Authority, Bilaspur, M.P., who informed vide his letter dated 15.7.1998, that the driving licence sent for verification was not issued by them. Thereupon, the petitioner was issued a notice calling for the explanation and thereafter, the petitioner was issued the impugned proceedings imposing penalty of removal from service. Therefore, the said order does not suffer from any legal infirmity and the said order has also been confirmed by the Labour Court in I.D.No.86 of 1999, after considering the entire record placed before the Court below, which was marked Exs.M1 to M.10. Therefore, the petitioner is not entitled for any relief sought for in the writ petition. Reliance on the judgments reported in General Manager Area-I, R.G.Division,. Singareni Collieries Company Limited, Godavarikhani, Karimnagar District v. Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal-I, Hyderabad and another[1] and Depot Manager, APSRTC, Hindupur, Ananthapur District and others v. Chairman, Industrial Tribunal-cum-Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Ananthapur and another[2], he submitted that in similar circumstances, where the drivers appointed by the corporation were removed on the ground that they produced fake driving lincences, this Court considering the facts and circumstances, ordered for reinstatement afresh. Therefore, he sought for similar to the writ petitioner. He also submitted that the Corporation has also issued the Circular No.PD.43/2000, dated 11.8.2000 for appointing drivers afresh, who were removed from service on the ground of possessing non- genuine driving licences. Therefore, he submits that even as per the said circular, the petitioner is entitled for reinstatement into service. On the other hand, the learned Standing Counsel for the respondent-Corporation submits that the respondent- Corporation will consider the case of the petitioner in terms of the circular dated 11.8.2000. It appears that the reason for issuing the said circular insisted for considering the cases of the drivers, who were appointed after following the due process of law and after considering the driving licence produced by those candidates but later on in an enquiry found to be fake and to provide the remedy to those candidates, who are not party to any fraud played in getting the said genuine licences but consider for fresh appointment on production of genuine licences. The counsel for the petitioner produced copy of the Circular dated 11.8.2000. A perusal of the Circular would indicate that at Coloumn No.3 for considering the cases of drivers removed from service for being in possession of non- genuine driving licences, certain guidelines have been framed. In view of the circular dated 11.8.2000 and also taken into consideration the judgment of this Court, where in similar circumstances, the drivers were directed to be given opportunity afresh, I pass the order as under:- The impugned award dated 4.5.2001 in I.D.No.86 of 1999 is set aside and consequently, the respondent- Corporation is directed to consider the case of the petitioner for appointing as Driver afresh in terms of the Circular dated 11.8.2000, which is stated to be in force as even today and pass appropriate orders, within a period of one month from the date of receipt of the copy of the order. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of. No costs. _____________________ Justice G. Chandraiah Date:02.9.2008 mrb [1] 2003 (6) ALD 481 (DB) [2] 2005 (5) ALD (NOC 175)