IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE FOURTEENTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 19377 of 1999 Between: V.Vasudeva Rao, S/o Rayanna, R/o EWS-760, Bharathnagar Colony, Sanathanagar, Hyderabad. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Presiding Officer Industrial Tribunal-cum-Addl.Labour Court, Hyderabad. 2 Depot Manager, A.P.S.R.T.C. Kukatpally, Hyderabad. .....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 direction or writ particularly one in the nature of writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ calling for the records from the Labour Court in I.D.No.62/96 quash the award passed by the Labour Court in I.D.direct the respondents to reinstate the petitioner into service with back wages, continuity of service and all other attendant beneﬁts and pass such or further order or orders as the Hon'ble Court deems ﬁt and proper in the circumstances of the case. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.G.VIDYASAGAR Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR LABOUR The Court made the following : O R D E R: In this writ petition, the petitioner has questioned the award of the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Additional Labour Court, Hyderabad, dated 29.6.1998, passed in I.D.No.62 of 1997. 2. The petitioner was appointed as a Conductor on 12.6.1986 and his services were regularized with eﬀect from 1.9.1986. At the time of his appointment in the respondent-corporation the petitioner has produced an SSC certiﬁcate, which he claimed to have obtained by passing the said examination with Hall Ticket No.392428 in the month of March, 1980. Subsequently, on the ground that the petitioner has produced the false SSC memo bearing No.042840, disciplinary proceedings were initiated by conducting domestic enquiry. Based on the report of the Enquiry Oﬃcer, the petitioner was removed from service. The said order of removal was challenged by the petitioner by raising a dispute under Section 2-A(2) of Industrial Disputes Act, in I.D.No.62 of 1997. 3. Before the Labour Court, on behalf of management, two witnesses were examined, apart from marking documents Exs.M-1 to M-6. On behalf of the petitioner, he himself was examined as WW1 and no documentary evidence was adduced. 4. On appreciating the oral and documentary evidence on record, the Labour Court, by recording a ﬁnding that the charge framed against the petitioner is proved, has confirmed the order of removal passed by the Department. 5. In this writ petition, it is argued by the learned counsel for petitioner that the SSC certiﬁcate was given to him by the Head Master of the school and that the said Head Master was not examined before recording a ﬁnding that the certiﬁcate produced by the petitioner is not a genuine one. In the enquiry proceedings before the Labour Court, the Sub-Inspector of the respondent/ management, who was made incharge to enquire into the genuineness of the certiﬁcate, was examined as MW1, and the Additional Joint Secretary of the Oﬃce of the Commissioner of the Government examinations was examined as MW2. In his oral evidence, MW2, has categorically stated that he has veriﬁed the records pertaining to the SSC examinations held in the month of March, 1980, and that the Hall Ticket No.392428, which was furnished by the petitioner, was not allotted to any candidate during the said year. Further, his categorical deposition was that Ex.M-1 was not issued through their oﬃce. Even the petitioner, who was examined as WW-1, has submitted that at the time of his appointment, he was taken into service based on the marks sheet under Ex.M-1. In view of the clear oral and documentary evidence on record, the Labour Court has come to the conclusion that the document produced by the petitioner, was not a genuine one. Though it is contended by the learned counsel for petitioner that the Head Master of the school, where the petitioner has studied, was not examined, but it is to be noted that the SSC marks memo would be prepared by the Board itself, and thereafter, they would be transferred to the respective schools to hand over to the candidates concerned. In that view of the matter, merely because the Head Master of the school was not examined, it cannot be said that the enquiry conducted in this regard, is vitiated, particularly in the light of the evidence of MW-2. From the evidence on record, it is clear that this is a case where the petitioner has secured employment by producing a false certiﬁcate, and in that view of the matter, I do not ﬁnd any illegality in the order passed by the Tribunal rejecting the application filed under Section 2-A(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act. 6. The writ petition is devoid of merit, and it is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. _____________________ R.SUBHASH REDDY, J 14th August, 2008 PNV ..... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1.2CCs to 2.2CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WP{BDLNM}