IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 6795 of 2000 Between: Sri Syed Abdul Khadar, S/o. Late Sri Syed Ameeruddin, R/o. H.No.3-28/A, R.T.C.Colony, Ramanthapur, Hyderabad 013 ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Presiding Officer, Labour Court - I, A.P., Hyderabad. 2 The Depot Manager, A.P.S.R.T.C., Musheerabad, Hyderabad 500 020 (A.P.) .....RESPONDENTS 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 to issue an order direction or writ particularly one in the nature of writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ after calling for the records from the Labour Court - I, Hyderabad and quash the award in I.D.No.77 of 1998 in so far as not granting reinstatement into service with continuity of service back wages and other attendant benefits and pass Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.G.VIDYASAGAR Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR LABOUR The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY Writ Petition No. 6795 of 2000 Order: Aggrieved by the award dated 09.03.1999, passed by the Labour Court-I, Hyderabad, in I.D. No. 77 of 1998, to the extent of not granting continuity of service with backwages and other attendant benefits, while ordering reinstatement into service as a ‘fresher’, the petitioner filed the present writ petition. The petitioner was appointed as a Driver in the A.P. State Road Transport Corporation in the year 1983. On the ground that he was unauthorisedly absent from duty for the period from 26.03.1994 to 09.11.1997 i.e., for a period of 3 years 7 months 13 days, disciplinary proceedings were initiated against him and he was charge sheeted by framing the following charge. “For having failed either to attend the APSRTC Hospital, Tarnaka, for medical treatment or attend to your duties at MSRD Depot from 26.03.1994 to till date which amounts to unauthorized absence. The above constitutes misconduct in terms of Regulation 28 (xxvii) and (xxxi) of APSRTC Employees (Conduct) Regulation 1963.” In spite of receipt of charge sheet, as the petitioner did not respond to the same, a regular enquiry was conducted by appointing an Enquiry Officer. Even in the enquiry proceedings also, though the petitioner received notice at first instance, he did not respond to the same. The second notice sent by the Enquiry Officer also returned unserved with an endorsement “party refused”. Therefore, the Enquiry Officer proceeded with the enquiry and recorded his finding that the charge leveled against the petitioner was proved. Based on the findings recorded by the Enquiry Officer, the petitioner was removed from service by the disciplinary authority. The appeal filed by the petitioner also ended in dismissal. Thereafter, the order of removal, as confirmed by the appellate authority, was challenged by the petitioner by filing an application under Section 2-A(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 which was numbered as I.D. No. 77 of 1998. Even before the Labour Court, no evidence was let in on behalf of the petitioner-workman, but the documents Exs.M1 to M15 were marked on behalf of the respondent- Corporation. The Tribunal, after re-appreciating the entire material on record, recorded a finding that the petitioner is guilty of absenting himself from duty and there are no grounds to interfere with the finding recorded by the Enquiry Officer. However, the Tribunal, having considered the fact that the order of removal is shockingly disproportionate to the proved misconduct, ordered to appoint the petitioner as a ‘fresher’. Though it is argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner was sick from 22.03.1994 to 09.11.1997, as he was suffering from severe back-ache, but both the Enquiry Officer as well as the Labour Court, having considered the entire material on record, recorded a finding that there was no material placed by the petitioner to prove that he was sick for a period of more than three years. Though the Labour Court found that the charge leveled against the petitioner was proved, but it took a lenient view and ordered to appoint the petitioner as a ‘fresher’. In view of the same, this Court is of the view that the petitioner is not entitled to any further relief in this writ petition. The writ petition is devoid of merit and the same is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. _____________________ R. SUBHASH REDDY, J. Date: 17.02.2009 Nsr