IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY SEVENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO WRIT PETITION NO : 35710 of 1998 Between: A.Murali, E.NO.41996 S/o. Shankaraiah, A.D.C. at APSRTC., Manthani Depot, Karimnagar. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Industrial Tribunal cum Labour Court, Rep.by its Chairman - Presiding Officer, Godavarikhani, Karimnagar District. 2 The Depot Manager, A.P.S.R.T.C., Godavarikhani, Karimnagar District. .....RESPONDENT(S) 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 to issue an Appropriate Writ order or Direction more Particularly one in the Nature of a Writ of Certiorari and call for the records relating to and connected with G.O.Rt.No. 930 dated 25/04/1997 in award No.50 of 1993 which was published on 20/05/1997 and quash or set aside the same and consequently remit the same to Hon'ble Industrial Tribunal cum Labour Court, Godavarikhani, with a direction to adjudicate the matter on merits and pass. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.K.PHANI RAJU Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR LABOUR The Court made the following : ORDER : None appears for the petitioner. This writ petition is directed against an order passed on 19.1.1995 in I.D. No. 50 of 1993, which came to be raised by the petitioner herein. The petitioner while working as a conductor in the APSRTC has been subjected to disciplinary proceedings. The thrust of the allegations against the petitioner was that he had conducted the bus without completing the issuance of tickets to all the passengers in the bus and thus violated the instructions “issue and start” of the corporation. The explanation offered by the writ petitioner is that a batch of 15 passengers boarded the bus at Sahayampet, Stage No.5 and requested the conductor to start the onward journey of the Bus as they are carrying a child passenger who is suffering from fits and the child needs to be admitted immediately to the hospital at Jammikunta. In those extraordinary circumstances and as it is gravely urgent to ferry the sick passenger, onward journey of the bus has been commenced without completing the issuance of tickets. Without appreciating this explanation of the petitioner, through the proceedings dated 28.8.1992, the Depot Manager, Godavarikhani Depot has imposed on him the punishment of deferring annual grade increments for three years with cumulative effect. Since it is a major punishment, the same could not have been imposed without conducting an enquiry at which there will be a reasonable opportunity available to the petitioner to demonstrate his bona fides. In those set of circumstances, he has invoked the mechanism available under Section 10 pursuant to which the dispute came to be referred for adjudication to the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Godavarikhani, which is entertained as I.D. No. 50 of 1993. The said Industrial Dispute has been dealt with tersely in the following manner : “For the respt., S.C., is present. Though the petitioner is present, his representative is called absent and documents are not filed. Hence, the petition is dismissed, but without costs, but would be restored suo-motu, if the petitioner files the documents within sixty (60) days from today, inclulding today, otherwise, the petition shall be deemed to have been dismissed, once and for all.” When once the Labour Court had noticed the presence of the petitioner before it, it could not have dismissed the industrial dispute for the default of appearance of the representative of the petitioner. It is not stated that the petitioner is not willing to proceed further with the matter. If the Labour Court needed any particular document to be exhibited before it, it could have specified the same instead of generalizing and observing that documents are not filed. It is asserted by the writ petitioner that all the necessary documents have been filed by the both parties before the Tribunal and that unfortunately it has not spared any look to the same. This apart, Rule 24 of the A.P.Industrial Disputes Procedure Rules 1958, does not authorize a reference to be dismissed for default. It has got to be dealt with on merits. In fact that was the view taken by a Division Bench of this Court on 25.4.1997 in WP No. 6153 of 1997 and also by another learned single Judge on 24.6.1998 in WP No. 12865 of 1998. In these set of circumstances for securing the ends of justice, I consider it appropriate to set aside the order passed by the Industrial Tribunal cum Labour Court, Godavarikhani, on 19.1.1995 and restore the I.D. No. 50 of 1993 on its file which will be dealt with as expeditiously as possible and decided on its merits. With this, the writ petition stands allowed. The Registry is directed to remit the records in I.D. No. 50 of 1993 along with a copy of this order to the Industrial Tribunal cum Labour Court, Godavarikhani. -------------------------------------- N.RAMAMOHANA RAO,J Dt : 27.2.2008 knk ..... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1.2CCs to 2.2CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WP{RAGHU}