THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH WRIT PETITION NO:6568 OF 2002 DATED:29.04.2011 BETWEEN: MD.MUSTAFA …PETITIONER AND INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT, GODAVARIKHANI & ANOTHER …RESPONDENTS. THIS COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH WRIT PETITION NO:6568 OF 2002 ORDER: The writ petition is filed by the petitioner seeking for a direction in the nature of certiorari to call for the records in I.D.No:153 of 2000, dated 21.9.2001 published on 17.11.2001, on the file of the 1st respondent and quash the same. The case of the petitioner-applicant is that he was appointed as Mechanic Gr.II in A.P.S. R.T.C in September, 1991 in the quota of direct recruitment and attached to Godavarikhani Depot. While so, during the month of November, 1991, an angular of the bus came and pressed his ribs while servicing the bus and as a result of which, he made sick. The respondent has not allowed the said sick and treated the said sick period as absent and removed him from service on the following charge: “for having absented to his duties from 18.1.1992 to 20.2.1992 and still without any intimation, sanctioned leave or producing any valid medical certificate, intimation, resulting in dislocation of services” Having aggrieved by the same, he raised an industrial dispute by way of filing I.D 153 of 2000 before the Industrial Tribunal-Labour Court, Godavarikhani, under section 2A (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Heard the learned counsel. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner was absent from duty only for three days i.e., from 18.1.1992 to 20.1.1992 and as a matter of fact, during the said dates, the petitioner sustained injuries in the accident during the course of his employment and consequently he could not attend the duty for obtaining treatment. He also produced the medical certificate to that effect. But, the same was not considered by the tribunal. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that when the matter was taken up for hearing, the petitioner was physically present. But, his counsel was not present before the tribunal and therefore, the petitioner submitted the written arguments before the tribunal and the tribunal dismissed the application without considering the case of the petitioner. Therefore, the order of the tribunal is liable to be set aside. With regard to the delay in approaching the Court, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner sustained injuries during the course of his employment and he submitted the valid sick to that effect and he was under the treatment of the Government Hospital, Karimnagar Doctors and the necessary valid sick Certificates issued by the Doctors are submitted along with the list of documents for marking the same. While so, the petitioner sought for amendment of the relief in the I.D. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the tribunal has not considered any of these aspects and therefore, the petitioner is deprived of the valuable right of hearing the case. With regard to the delay, it is further submitted by the learned counsel that aggrieved by the order of removal, the petitioner preferred an appeal and a review petition and the same were rejected on 24.9.1999 and therefore, the delay in filing the I.D is neither intentional nor wanton. On the rival contentions, the fact that remains undisputed is that the petitioner was a mechanic and he was absent for only three days for the reason that he sustained injuries in the course of employment. But, the bonafide reason shown by the petitioner has not been considered from the date of the charge till the date of removal. A perusal of the order of the tribunal does not show any sufficient reason for dismissing the I.D filed by the petitioner and apart from that, the tribunal has not applied its mind in a proper perspective while considering the facts and circumstances of the case. In these circumstances, the order of the tribunal is set aside and the order of removal is modified to that of reinstatement of the petitioner into service without back wages, but with continuity of service for the purpose of retiremental benefits. Subject to the above direction, this writ petition is disposed of. No costs. _________________ Justice G.Chandraiah. Date:29.04.2011 Gurc. THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH WRIT PETITION NO:6568 of 2001 DATED:29.04.2011