THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO W.P.No.3003 OF 2006 ORDER: This writ petition is preferred by the Depot Manager, Waltair Depot of the State-owned Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation (for short the ‘Corporation’), in the company of the Regional Manager of Visakhapatnam, calling in question the legality and validity of the Award dated 30-09-2004, passed in I.D.No.14 of 2002, which was initiated by the 1st respondent workman, when he was alive. The case of the workman was that he was recruited to the service of the Corporation on 21-01-1988 and worked as a Driver till he had been removed from service as a measure of punishment on 08-05-2000. The 1st petitioner - Depot Manager removed him from service on the ground that he remained absent between 06-07- 1999 to 15-07-1999 without obtaining sanction of leave. He was, hence, issued the charge sheet on 27-07-1999. For his unauthorized absence, he has been penalized with the punishment of removal from service. It is averred that the 1st respondent workman died on 05-10-2003 and his legal representatives, who were brought on record, have been permitted to prosecute the case. The Labour Court, upon appreciation of the material on record, had come to the conclusion that for the proven misconduct of absence, for a short spell of few days between 06-07- 1999 to 15-07-1999, imposition of punishment of removal from service was disproportionate. It is clearly pointed out that there are several punishments, which have been listed out in the Service Regulations of the Corporation and any other punishment other than removal would have met with the ends of justice in the case. Therefore, the Labour Court had preferred to exercise the jurisdiction available with it under Section 11A of the Act. Since, the workman could not be reinstated, his legal representatives were ordered to be paid 50% of the back wages for the period from the date of his removal till the date of his death, i.e., 05-10-2003. This period itself is less than 3 ½ years. The learned Standing Counsel raised several contentions to demonstrate that the discretion exercised by the Labour Court is wrong, but however, when I confronted him as to how far the Depot Manager has exercised the discretion, he was fair enough to submit that in the given circumstances, any other punishment, which would have impacted the workman severely, would have met with the ends of justice. What the learned Standing Counsel points out is that the 1st respondent workman was a habitual absentee and his attitude was creating inconvenience for the smooth operations of the fleet by the Corporation. Be that as it may, unauthorized absence for a period of ten days, at the first instance, itself need not result in a grave punishment of removal from service to be imposed. Any other punishment other than removal from service would have produced the desired result of correcting the erroneous and indisciplined behavior of the workman. Instead, the Depot Manager has passed the extreme punishment of removal from service. As was noticed supra, the workman died on 05-10-2003. The Award of the Labour Court has properly balanced the interests of both the parties. I, therefore, do not see any justifiable reason for interfering with the Award passed by the Labour Court. I grant thirty days time from today for the Corporation to deposit or pay the legal representatives of the workman through Demand Draft or Pay Order the amount of 50% of the back wages. With this, the writ petition stands dismissed. No costs. --------------------------------- Nooty Ramamohana Rao, J mrk 24th February 2011