THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.4318 of 2010 Dated: 01.10.2010 Between: Syed Nasar Ali. .. Petitioner. And Andhra Pradesh Tourism Development Corporation Limited, rep. by its Managing Director, Himayathnagar, Hyderabad, And others. .. Respondents ORDER: The petitioner was appointed as a driver by the A.P. Tourism Development Corporation Limited, the 1st respondent herein, on 01.01.2003 under an agreement. Consequently, the order of appointment was issued on 26.12.2003. Alleging that the petitioner remained unauthorisedly absent for 54 days, the Joint Manager of the Corporation issued proceedings dated 20.05.2008, directing the Manager (Transport), Secunderabad, to relieve the petitioner after verifying dues. An appeal preferred by the petitioner was rejected by the Managing Director vide orders dated 04.01.2010. The petitioner feels aggrieved by the said proceedings. It is urged that the petitioner was not issued any show cause notice much less any departmental enquiry was conducted before he was removed from service. He contends that it amounts to retrenchment from service contrary to Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act (for short ‘the Act’). On behalf of the respondents, a counter affidavit is filed. According to them, the impugned orders are passed strictly in terms of clause 5 of the agreement, which directs that any employee who remains absent unauthorisedly for a period exceeding ten days shall not be permitted to join duty. The other grounds urged by the petitioner are opposed. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing counsel for the respondents. The petitioner challenges the order or proceedings, through which his services are terminated, mainly on the ground that they were not preceded by any show cause notice or charge sheet or departmental enquiry. It does not appear that the Corporation has any framed regulations that govern the matter of this nature. Strictly speaking, the petitioner has to approach the Labour Court to canvas his grievance and prove that the retrenchment is contrary to Section 25-F of the Act. The record discloses that on 15.05.2008, the Manager (Transport) of the Corporation, under whom the petitioner was working, addressed a letter to the General Manager stating that there is acute shortage of drivers and that the petitioner has a good track record. His endeavor was to impress upon the superior authorities to reinstate the petitioner, particularly, in view of the fact that there were no allegations of serious misconduct. Even now the 1st respondent can take the said letter into account and pass appropriate orders, instead of driving the petitioner to Labour Court and exposing the Corporation to the possibility of payment of backwages without extracting service from the petitioner. The writ petition is disposed of, directing the 1st respondent to take into account the letter dated 15.05.2008 addressed by the Manager (Transport) to the General Manager (TO) of the Corporate Office and pass appropriate orders within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. There shall be no order as to costs. _____________________ L.NARASIMHA REDDY,J 01.10.2010 Note: Furnish CC in one week Bo v v