IN THE HIGH COURT JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD FRIDAY, THE SIXTEENTH DAY OF DECEMBER, TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH W.P. No.18462 of 2011 Between: K.Anjaiah … Petitioner And The Depot Manager, APSRTC., Falaknuma Bus Depot, Hyderabad and another. … Respondents THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH W.P. No.18462 of 2011 ORDER: This writ petition has been filed seeking for issuance of Writ of Certiorari, quash the impugned award dated 16.03.2011 passed in I.D. No.20 of 2010, published on 19.05.2011 on the file of the Labour Court-I, Hyderabad, in not granting any relief, as illegal, capricious, arbitrary, in violation of Article 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India, and consequently to direct the respondents to reinstate the petitioner into service along with continuity of service, attendant benefits and back wages. The case of the petitioner, in brief, is that the petitioner joined the service of the respondents’ Corporation as Conductor on 05.06.2008 after due selection. While so, on 13.02.2009, the services of the petitioner were terminated on the ground that he did not operate one trip. Aggrieved by the same, he filed an appeal, before the Divisional Manager, and thereafter, filed revision petition before the Regional Manager, who rejected the appeal and the revision, vide order dated 09.04.2009 and 18.06.2009, respectively. Assailing the above, the petitioner raised I.D. No.20 of 2010 before the learned Tribunal seeking relief of reinstatement into service along with all benefits and the learned Tribunal vide its award dated 16.03.2011 while dismissing the said I.D. held that the period of contract of the petitioner under the respondent expired long back even by 13.02.2009, on which date, according to the petitioner, he was terminated from service. So not utilizing services of the petitioner from 13.02.2009 by the respondent cannot be considered as termination from service. The learned Tribunal eventually reached to the conclusion that practically there was no termination at all. Challenging the impugned award dated 16.03.2011, the petitioner filed the present writ petition. On behalf of the respondents, while denying the averments of the petitioner, detailed counter affidavit has been filed, inter alia, stating that the petitioner was engaged as contract Conductor on consolidated pay of Rs.3,796/- p.m., for a period from 05.06.2008 to 30.06.2008 and an agreement was also entered into between the petitioner and the respondent No.1 on 13.06.2008. During the period of contract, the petitioner involved in operational irregularities on 04.02.2009. Hence, as per clauses 16 & 13 of the terms and conditions of the agreement, the contract was terminated with effect from 13.02.2009. Further, appeal and the review filed by the petitioner were rejected. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner filed I.D. No.20 of 2010 before the learned Tribunal wherein the respondents took a stand that the I.D. itself is not maintainable as the petitioner was working under contract basis and as such, the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act are not applicable to the petitioner. Eventually, the learned Tribunal rightly came to the conclusion that there is no employer and employee relationship, after expiry of the contract. Hence, there is no illegality in the impugned award passed by the learned Tribunal. It is further submitted that a complaint was received on 06.02.2009 from the President and Secretary of Pragathi Yuvajana Sangham, Maheswaram that while the petitioner was conducting the bus, he cancelled the trip from Maheswaram to Chariminar and Chariminar to Maheswaram on 19.00 hours to 21.00 unauthorisedly at his own. The Chief Inspector, Falaknuma depot was also reported on 07.02.2009 that the petitioner cancelled the said trips and detained the vehicle at Maheswaram and shown in the SR that he operated the trip. Cancellation of trip without any valid reasons and without any permission from the superiors and showing in the SR as lastly operated the trip is serious misconduct apart from inconvenience to the traveling public besides loss of revenue to the Corporation. Hence, the termination of the agreement as per the terms and conditions is legal and there are no merits in the writ petition and the same is liable to be dismissed. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that in similar situations, the Conductors appointed on contract basis removed/terminated from service have been approaching this Court questioning such orders and this Court while setting aside such order of removal/termination directing for reinstatement into service with continuity of service on the ground that such terminations/removals are without issuing any notice or seeking any explanation from the contractual employees, which is in violation of principles of natural justice. In support of his contention, he placed a copy of the order dated 24.06.2011 passed in W.P. No.17522 of 2011 before this Court. He further submitted that as per the Circular No.PD-05/2009, dated 23.02.2009, issued by the 2nd respondent, Managing Director, procedure is to be followed by the authorities before terminating the services of the contract Conductors and in the instant case, the authorities, who have rejected the appeal and the revision, have not followed the due procedure contemplated under the said circular and the same is in violation of principles of natural justice. The learned counsel further submitted that the learned Tribunal having framed the issue for consideration Whether the respondent was justified in terminating the services of the petitioner without conducting any enquiry on the alleged misconduct as mentioned in the petition found that no such enquiry was conducted but dismissed the said I.D. on the ground that as on the date of termination of the services of the petitioner, there does not exist any relationship of Master and Servant between the petitioner and the respondent. It is an admitted fact that the services of the petitioner were terminated on the ground of some allegations whereby it attached stigma to the petitioner. The contract service has no effect on the petitioner for the reason that admittedly the petitioner was continuing in service as on the date of termination, therefore, the observation of the learned Tribunal that there is no master and servant relationship, cannot be sustained. Therefore, the impugned award is liable to be set aside. On the other hand, the learned standing counsel for the Corporation would submit that before the learned Tribunal there was every opportunity to both the parties to adduce evidence and take appropriate pleas available to them. In the instant case, the learned Tribunal had provided ample opportunity to both the parties and on considering the evidence on record and after hearing both the parties, the learned Tribunal came to the conclusion that as on the date of termination of the services of the petitioner there was no existence of the agreement between the petitioner and the management. Therefore, there was no relationship of Master and Servant between the petitioner and the respondents and accordingly, no relief was granted. In view of the above, there is no illegality or irregularity on the part of the learned Tribunal in passing the impugned award and this writ petition is liable to be dismissed. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned standing counsel for the respondents and perused the material on record. The point that arises for consideration is whether the impugned award suffers from any illegality? Admittedly, the petitioner was an employee of the respondents working as Conductor on contract basis and removed from service on some alleged irregularities in operating the bus. Thereafter, the petitioner filed appeal and revision that were rejected by the authorities concerned and assailing which, he raised industrial dispute vide I.D. No.20 of 2010 and the learned tribunal dismissed the said I.D. Assailing which, the petitioner filed the present writ petition. No doubt, based on the pleadings of both the parties, the learned Tribunal framed the appropriate issues i.e. whether there exist any justification in maintaining the petition under Section 2-A (2) of the I.D. Act and whether the respondent was justified in terminating the services of the petitioner without conducting any enquiry on the alleged misconduct as mentioned in the petition? And to what relief? but, the learned Tribunal, without considering the said issues in a proper perspective dismissed the said I.D. on the ground that there was no existence of Master and Servant relationship between the petitioner and the respondent and also on the ground that the agreement was expired by 30.06.2008. Therefore, no relief was granted in favour of the petitioner. It is to be noted here that having been framed the appropriate issues and not considering them in proper perspective, the matter has to be remitted to the learned Tribunal for fresh consideration. But, there is no doubt, with regard to the fact that there are circulars issued by the respondents Corporation that whenever any Conductor is appointed on contract basis and removed or terminated from service on the ground of certain alleged irregularities, the procedure is to be followed by way of giving show cause notice providing opportunity to the employee to submit his explanation and conduct enquiry into the matter and then to pass appropriate orders. In the instant case, it reveals on the face of the record that no such opportunity was given to the petitioner therefore, it is nothing but violation of principles of natural justice on the part of the respondents. This Court in similar circumstances adjudicated W.P. No.17522 of 2011 vide its order dated 24.06.2011 wherein the petitioner sought to issue writ of mandamus declaring the impugned proceedings dated 03.03.2010 therein in respect of not granting the continuity of service, attendant benefits and back wages, as arbitrary, illegal and in violation of principles of natural justice and consequently sought a direction to the respondents therein to treat the re- engagement of service as that of with continuity of service attendant benefits and back wages. In that case, the petitioner therein was a driver appointed on contract basis. After some time, he was terminated from service on the ground of absenteeism. No enquiry was conducted before passing the order of termination. Subsequently, he came to be re-engaged on the basis of the orders passed by the appellate authority. The grievance of the petitioner therein was that while issuing order of reinstatement, the respondents did not extend the benefit of continuity of service. Under those circumstances, this Court while allowing the writ petition directed that the petitioner therein shall be entitled to the benefit of continuity of service between the date of termination and the date of re-engagement, only for the purpose of regularization denying the monetary or any other benefits in pursuance of the order and further observed that the services of the petitioner shall be regularized in the existing vacancies or in the future vacancies. The difference from the facts adjudicated in the case referred to above with the present case are that the petitioner in the referred case is the Driver appointed on contract basis terminated from service on the ground of absenteeism. No enquiry was conducted before the order of termination was passed. Subsequently, he came to be re- engaged on the basis of the orders passed by the appellate authority. The grievance of the petitioner therein was that while issuing orders of re-engagement, the respondents did not extend the benefit of continuity of service. Aggrieved by which, the petitioner therein filed the referred writ petition and wherein this Court while allowing the writ petition directed that the petitioner shall be entitled to the benefit of continuity of service between the date of termination and the date of re-engagement, only for the purpose of regularization, denying the monetary or any other benefits in pursuance of the order. The petitioner in the present case is Conductor terminated from service on certain irregularities without following due procedure and without issuing any notice and having been filed appeal and the revision that were rejected and thereafter filed I.D. and the learned Tribunal dismissed the same as narrated hereinabove. Comparatively, in both the cases, the authorities concerned have violated the principles of natural justice. In the instant case, the learned Tribunal having been framed the issue as to whether such termination was made by following the due process of law, the learned Tribunal did not answer the same but adjudicated only on the ground that the contractual period was expired by the time he was terminated. Under those circumstances, this Court is of the view that the award passed by the learned Tribunal is erroneous and illegal and the same is liable to be set aside and accordingly set aside. Consequently, this writ petition is allowed with the following direction. The respondents are directed to reinstate the petitioner into service as contract Conductor with continuity of service, from the date of termination till the date of re-engagement, only for the purpose of regularization. However, the petitioner shall not be entitled to any monetary or any other benefits in pursuance of this order. With the above direction, this writ petition is allowed. There shall be no order as to costs. _________________________ JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH Date: 16.12.2011 LSK