IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE NINETEENTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No.18626 of 2000 Between: The Depot Manager, A.P.S.R.T.C., Elur, West Godavari District. ... PETITIONER AND 1 The Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Guntur, 2 Gulla Rama Rao, E. 90500 (Died), S/o. Somulu, Near Low Bridge, Eluru District. 3 Gulla Sivamma, W/o. late G.Rama Rao, Vasanthavadu, Pedapadu Mandal, West Godavari District. 3 and 4 added as per orders, dt. 29.3.97, in I.D.No.254/97 4 Gulla Satyanarayana, S/o. Late Rama Rao, Vasanthavadu, Pedapadu Mandal, West Godavari District. 3 and 4 added as per orders, dt. 29.3.97, in I.D.No.254/97. ...RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court may be pleased to call for the records relating to the award in I.D.No.47/96 dated 14.3.2000 on the file of the Labour Court, Guntur and quash the same as arbitrary and illegal by way of issue of a Writ of Certiorari or any other appropriate Writ, Order or orders as the Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. Counsel for the petitioner: Mr. C. Prakash Reddy (SC FOR APSRTC) Counsel for respondent No1: GP FOR LABOUR Counsel for respondents 2 to 4: Sri S.M. Subhan The Court made the following Order: This writ petition is filed by the A.P. State Road Transport Corporation, represented by its Depot Manager, Eluru, West Godavari District, challenging the validity of the award dated 08-09-1994, passed by the Labour Court, Guntur, in I.D.No.47 of 1996. 2. The second respondent herein was appointed as driver in the APSRTC in the year 1980 and attached to Kovvur Depot, West Godavari District. When he was working at Eluru Bus Depot, on the ground that he was unauthorizedly absent for duties from 28-06-1990 to 16-05-1991, disciplinary proceedings were initiated against him and he was issued charge sheet dated 16-05-1991 framing the following charges: "i) For having absented with effect from 28.6.90 which resulted in dislocation of service and inconvenience to the traveling public which constitutes misconduct as per Reg.28 (xxxvii) of APSRTC (Conduct) Reg.1963.” ii) For having absented duties from 28.6.90 to 16.5.91 without any prior permission or sanctioned leave which constitutes misconduct as per Regulation 28(xxxvii) of APSRTC Employees (Conduct) Regs.1963.” 3. In view of the explanation submitted by him denying the said charge, a regular enquiry was ordered by appointing an enquiry officer. The enquiry officer submitted report dated 16-07-1991 recording a finding that the charges framed against the second respondent are proved. Thereafter, by issuing show cause notice dated 18-07-1991, the disciplinary authority passed order dated 14-08-1991 removing the second respondent from service. The second respondent filed an appeal challenging the said order of the disciplinary authority, but was unsuccessful. Thereafter, he raised an industrial dispute by filing an application under Section 2-A(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 in I.D.No.47 of 1996 before the Labour Court, Guntur. The Labour Court, by the impugned award, held that in spite of the explanation submitted by the second respondent denying the charge, without conducting any enquiry, order of removal was passed and therefore the second respondent should be ordered to be reinstated into service. However, taking into account that the second respondent died during the pendency of the matter, awarded an amount of Rs.75,000/- as compensation and directed the petitioner-corporation to pay the said sum to the wife and son of the second respondent, i.e. respondents 3 and 4 herein. Aggrieved by the same, the present writ petition by the APSRTC. 4. It is submitted by the learned Standing counsel appearing for the petitioner-APSRTC that as the second respondent was unauthorizedly absent for duties for almost an year, the disciplinary authority passed orders removing him from service, but, the Labour Court, without appreciating the evidence on record, interfered with the punishment imposed on the second respondent and erroneously ordered for payment of compensation to his legal representatives. 5. In this case, after issuing charge-sheet on 16-05-1991, the second respondent filed his explanation denying the charges. In spite of denial of charges, without conducting any further enquiry, show cause notice was issued and orders were passed imposing punishment of removal from service. Though counter affidavit is filed by the petitioner-corporation before the Labour Court, there is no specific reference to the domestic enquiry proceedings. It is to be noted that the order removing the second respondent from service was passed without conducting any enquiry, which is contrary to Regulation 12 of the Employees (Classification, Control and Appeal) Regulations, 1967, framed under Section 45 of the Road Transport Corporation Act. As stated above, there is no specific reference to the domestic enquiry proceedings in the counter affidavit filed by the petitioner-corporation before the Labour Court. Even in this writ petition, except stating that enquiry was conducted, no other material is placed before this court to show that after filing of the explanation by the second respondent, any further enquiry is conducted as required under the Regulations. Even at the time of arguments, no material is produced, so as to satisfy this court that a regular enquiry was conducted as per the procedure contemplated under the Regulations. The Labour Court, in the impugned award observed that no oral or documentary evidence was adduced. The Labour Court, further observed that, that the charge- sheet was issued to the second respondent on 16-05-1991 for unauthorized absence for duties and subsequently without conducting any enquiry into the charges framed against the second respondent, show cause notice was issued to him and order of removal was passed and therefore the same cannot be sustained. It was further observed that since the order of removal is held invalid, the second respondent should be ordered to be reinstated into service, but, however the same cannot be done since the second respondent died on 26-03-1996. Therefore, the Labour Court held that the wife and son of the second respondent are entitled to be granted compensation. At the same time, attributing laches on the part of the second respondent in approaching the Labour Court, it was held that compensation of 50% of wages can be granted, i.e. the wages which the second respondent would have earned had he been in service. Accordingly, compensation of Rs.75,000/- was fixed by the Labour Court and the same is ordered to be paid to the wife and son of the second respondent. As much as no enquiry is conducted into the charges framed against the second respondent and order of removal was passed straightway without affording him any opportunity, I am of the view that the Labour Court came to a right conclusion and held that the second respondent should be reinstated into service and since the second respondent has died, it has granted compensation to the legal representatives of the second respondent, quantified at 50% of wages which he would have earned, had he been in service. Hence, I find no valid ground to interfere with the impugned award of the Labour Court. 6. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. _____________________ R. SUBHASH REDDY, J. March 19, 2009 MRR