IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE FOURTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION No 12928 of 2006 Between: 1 The APSRTC, Rep by its Managing Director, APSRTC, Musheerabad, Hyderabad. 2 The APSRTC, Rep by its Depot Manager, APSRTC, Tadipatri Depot, Anantapur District. ..... PETITIONERS AND 1 P. Venkata Swamy, Driver, E. 575511, Tadipatri Depot, s/o. Tirupalu, H.No. 23/2, Nitturu, Tadipatri, Anantapur District. 2 The Chairman-cum-President Officer, Industrial Tribunal- cum-labour Court, Anantapur. .....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 calling for the records relating to ID.No.53/200 on the ﬁle of the Industrial Tribunal Cum Lobour court Anantapur and quash the award dated 15-12- 2005 by issuing appreciate Writ order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of certiorari and to pass such other or orders as the Hon'ble court may deem ﬁt and proper in the circumstances of the case. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.P.VINAYAKA SWAMY Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR LABOUR The Court made the following ORDER: The ﬁrst respondent was engaged as a Casual Driver in Tadipatri Depot of A.P.S.R.T.C. On veriﬁcation, it was found that driving licence produced by him is not genuine. Therefore, he was issued a charge sheet, dated 23.02.1998, and thereafter, he was removed from service, through an order, dated 23.05.1998, passed by the ﬁrst petitioner. The ﬁrst respondent ﬁled I.D.No.52 of 2003 under Section 2-A(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act before the Chairman-cum-Presiding Oﬃcer, Industrial Tribunal- cum-Labour Court, Anantapur. Through its award, dated 15.12.2005, the Labour Court directed reinstatement of the ﬁrst respondent with back wages and continuity of service, on the ground that the order of removal was not preceded by a departmental enquiry. The award of the Labour Court is challenged in this writ petition. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned counsel for the first respondent. It is not in dispute that the ﬁrst respondent was only a casual employee as on the date of his removal. Therefore, the question of conducting departmental enquiry does not arise. The requirement under law, namely, issuance of a show cause notice, was complied with by serving charge sheet. Under these circumstances, the Labour Court was not justiﬁed in directing reinstatement of the ﬁrst respondent with continuity of service and back wages. Strictly speaking, the award of the Labour Court deserves to be set aside or the matter needs to be remanded for fresh consideration and disposal. One factor, which deserves consideration, at this stage, is that the Corporation itself issued a Circular to the eﬀect that in matters of this nature, if the employees produce genuine licences, they would be appointed as Drivers afresh. It is represented that the ﬁrst respondent has since produced a genuine licence. In that view of the matter, the writ petition is partly allowed modifying the award to the eﬀect that the appointment of the ﬁrst respondent pursuant to the award shall be treated as a fresh one. There shall be no order as to costs. ___________________ L.NARASIMHA REDDY,J Dt:04.08.2008 kdl