THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. RAMULU Wednesday, 13th day of February,2008 W.P.No.16335 of 2000 Between:- Ch. Mogili … Petitioner and The Industrial Tribunal-cum- Labour Court, rep. by its Presiding Officer, Warangal, Warangal District and another … Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. RAMULU W.P.No.16335 of 2000 ORAL ORDER: Heard both sides. It appears, petitioner was appointed as a Conductor with effect from 4-5-1976 in the respondent-Corporation. While that being so, in view of the charge of unauthorized absenteeism from 5-12-1990 to 16-2-1971 (73 days), after conducting a detailed enquiry, he has been removed from service on 5-9-1991. Aggrieved thereby, petitioner raised a dispute under Section 2-A(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act,1947 (for short ‘the Act’) before the Industrial Tribunal- cum-Labour Court, Warangal in I.D.No.14 of 1998. Labour Court, after an elaborate consideration of the entire evidence placed before it, came to the conclusion that the enquiry conducted by the Management was just and proper and further held that the charges were proved; however, the punishment of removal from service is disproportionate to that of the misconduct and as such, while exercising powers under Section 11-A of the Act ordered for appointment of the petitioner as a ‘Fresh Recruit’ Conductor in the Corporation. Further, it is stated that the petitioner is also entitled for continuity of service from the date of appointment to 5-12-1990 and thereafter from the date of reinstatement into service for the limited purpose of terminal benefits. Thus, according to the learned counsel for the petitioner, Labour Court has created a gap of service between 5-12-1990 and the date of reinstatement into service. It appears, petitioner was reinstated into service in 2001. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, neither the punishment of removal from service was proper nor Labour Court was correct in denying continuity of service and other attendant benefits. Learned counsel for the respondent-Corporation, however, supported the Award passed by the Labour Court and contended that the Labour Court has not committed any error calling for interference of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the opinion that the charge against the petitioner being only absenteeism for a period of 73 days, the denial of continuity of service in a case of this nature is harsh. Therefore, to meet the ends of justice, the Award passed by the Labour Court requires to be modified as that of reinstatement with continuity of service, but without any back wages and without any attendant benefits. In the result, the Award passed by the Labour Court is modified as reinstatement of the petitioner with continuity of service, but without any back wages and other attendant benefits. With the above modification of the impugned Award, the Writ Petition is disposed of. No order as to costs. 13-2-2008 prk