IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE TWENTY SIXTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.4604 of 1999 Between: M.Shaik Ahmed, S/o.Shaik Hussain, Aged 42 years, R/o. Hyderabad. ..... PETITIONERS AND 1. The Labour Court-I, Rep. By Presiding Officer, Chandravihar Buildings, Hyderabad 2. The Divisional Electrical Engineer (Operation), Zone-I, APSEB, Mint Compound, Hyderabad. 3. The Superintendent Engineer (Operation), APSEB, City Circle, Mint Compound, Hyderabad. .....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 an order, direction or Writ more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Certiorari, and after calling for the records from the 1st Respondent in I.D.No.40/92 and quash the Award dated 05.10.1996 in so far confirming the oral termination passed by the 2nd Respondent and consequently direct the Respondents to reinstate the Petitioner into service, with continuity of service, back-wages and all other attendant benefits; and pass such other order or orders as deem fit and proper under the circumstances of the case. Counsel for the Petitioner: NONE APPEARED Counsel for the Respondent No.1: NONE APPEARED Counsel for the Respondent Nos.2 & 3: Mr.P.R.BALARAMI REDDY The Court made the following : ORDER: This writ petition is filed for a writ of Certiorari to quash award dated 05.10.1996 in I.D.No.40 of 1992 on the file of respondent No.1, confirming the Memo dated 29.05.1987 passed by respondent No.2. At the hearing, there is no representation for the petitioner. Heard Sri P.R.Balarami Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for respondents 2 and 3 and perused the record. The petitioner was appointed as Watchman on 10.10.1980 on compassionate grounds in the office of respondent No.2. He was absent in three different spells, the details of which are as follows: “01.12.1981 to 26.11.1982 361 days 10.05.1983 to 10.10.1983 154 days 03.11.1983 to 04.06.1986 939 days” The petitioner did not obtain any permission or got the leave sanctioned for 613 days out of the above mentioned period. Respondent No.2 vide his proceedings dated 21.06.1986 called for explanation from the petitioner for his continuous unauthorized absence and to show cause why he should not be treated as resigned under Regulation 28 (3) of the APSEB Service Regulations. The petitioner submitted his explanation dated 04.07.1986, which was considered by respondent No.2 and the impugned memo was issued declaring that the petitioner is deemed to have resigned. Thereupon, the petitioner raised Industrial Dispute by way of I.D.No.40 of 1992 before respondent No.1. Pending the said I.D, the petitioner filed I.A.No.285 of 1992 for an interim direction of reinstatement and the Labour Court granted such a direction, in pursuance of which, the petitioner was taken back into service. Respondent No.1 held enquiry during which oral and documentary evidence was adduced by both the parties. After a detailed consideration of the evidence on record, the Labour Court passed the impugned order. I have carefully gone through the reasons given in the impugned award. The Labour Court, after a proper analysis of evidence, concluded that the petitioner was unauthorisedly absent without leave or any valid reason. The Labour Court also referred to Regulation 28(3) of APSEB Service Regulations, which reads as under: “Any employee of the Board who remained un- authorisedly absent from duty for a continuous period of one year shall be deemed to have resigned from service from the date of absence and shall automatically cease to be in Board Employment.” On the over all consideration of the evidence and the above mentioned Regulation, the Labour Court upheld the order passed by respondent No.2. The learned counsel for the petitioner is not present to point out any illegality in the impugned award passed by the Labour Court. In view of the same, I find no reason to interfere with the well considered award impugned in this writ petition. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Date: 26.12.2008 va