THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION No. 8272 OF 2002 ORDER The petitioner was appointed as driver in the A.P.S.R.T.C., on 15.11.1977. By 1989 he was working in the Narsampet Depot. A charge sheet was issued to him alleging that he has absented on a particular day without any intimation; he disobeyed the instructions of the Senior Traffic Inspector and has misbehaved with him. The petitioner submitted explanation denying the allegations. Domestic enquiry was conducted. The enquiry officer submitted a report holding that charge No.1 is not proved but charges 2 and 3 are proved. Taking the same into account, the Depot Manager i.e., 2nd respondent herein passed an Order dated 16.05.1989 removing the petitioner from service. Appeal filed by the petitioner was dismissed by the Divisional Manager on 15.06.1990 and review in the year 1991 by the Regional Manager. Petitioner filed I.D. No.131 of 1998 under Section 2-A (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act before the Labour Court, Warangal. The Labour Court dismissed the I.D. on 13.06.2001 on the ground that the I.D. was filed with enormous delay. This writ petition is filed challenging the order of removal as confirmed by the Labour Court in its Award in I.D. No. 131 of 1998. The petitioner contends that the order of removal was totally unjustified particularly when the important allegation as to unauthorized absence was held not proved. He contends that the I.D. could not be filed in time on account of financial difficulties and the Labour Court was not justified in dismissing I.D. The respondents filed a counter affidavit. It is stated that the petitioner remained absent on several occasions resulting in dislocation of services and the punishment imposed against him is commensurate with the proven acts of misconduct. They submit that the Labour Court took into account, the settled principles and dismissed the I.D. Sri A.K. Jayaprakash Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner could not pursue the remedy after dismissal of the review due to financial difficulties and Labour Court ought not to have denied the relief which is provided for under the labour welfare legislation. He contends that the acts alleged against the petitioner are trivial in nature and punishment is too disproportionate. Sri P. Sridhar Reddy, learned standing counsel for the respondent submits that the petitioner is a habitual absentee and vexed with his negligence to perform duties, the order of removal was passed. He contends that the enormous delay of about seven years was not at all explained. The purport of the charges framed against the petitioner was indicated above. It appears that the petitioner was unauthorisedly absent on a particular day and he did not obey the instructions given by his Senior Traffic Inspector. In the domestic enquiry, the allegation as to unauthorized absence was held not proved. The only allegation that remained was his alleged insubordination or misconduct with the Senior Traffic Inspector. It is not as if the petitioner had raised any quarrel with the officials. The discussion between himself and the officer was in relation to unauthorized absence. His version that his absence cannot be treated as unauthorized stood vindicated with the finding of the enquiry officer that the first charge is not proved. In a matter of this nature, the 2nd respondent ought to have been cautious in moulding the punishment, instead he has imposed the major penalty of removal from service. The Appellate and Review authorities, who normally rectify such mistakes, have unfortunately confirmed the order of punishment imposed against the petitioner. This, even while the punishments for unauthorized absence for months together, are modified and punishment of a lesser magnitude was imposed. Petitioner was removed from service in May 1989 and remained out of employment. He pursued the remedies of Appeal and Review till 1991. He states that his financial condition did not permit him of pursuing further remedies. It is not difficult to imagine the plight of a driver removed from service in the context of maintaining his family on the one hand and pursuing the litigation on the other. It was only in the year 1998, he approached the Labour Court. The I.D. was dismissed only on the ground that there was delay in pursuing the proceedings. The Labour Court refused to advert to the merits of the matter. Reference was made to the Judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Balbir Singh Vs. Punjab Roadways and another[1]. Before this Court, reliance was placed by the respondents on a Judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in U.P. State Road Transport Corporation Vs. Ram Singh and another[2]. That was a case in which the I.D. was filed with a delay of 13 years. The delay involved in the instant case is about six years. Time and again the Hon’ble Supreme Court enlightened about the nature of the proceedings under the Industrial Disputes Act and exhorted that liberal approach must be adopted in such cases. Further, if an employee has made out a case for interference, the interest of the employee can be protected by denying the relief for the corresponding period. Total denial of relief on the sole ground of delay that too for a period of six years cannot be held to be reasonable. It has already been mentioned that the enquiry officer himself felt that the first charge, which is grave in nature, was not proved. Even assuming that charges 2 and 3 are proved, a minor punishment can be imposed for that. Hence, the writ petition is allowed and a) the order of removal dated 16.05.1989 as confirmed in I.D. No. 131 of 1998 by the Labour Court, Warangal, is set aside; b) the petitioner shall be reinstated into service without back wages but with continuity of service limited to the extent of calculating the pensionary benefits; and c) punishment of withholding of one increment without cumulative effect shall be imposed against the petitioner on re-instatement into service. There shall be no order as to costs. _________________________ JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY Dated: 19.01.2010 tsk [1] 2001 SCC (L & S) 165 [2] (2008) 17 SCC 627