IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD Dated this the third day of December, 2010. Present: The Hon’ble Sri Justice P. Swaroop Reddy W.P.No. 8095 of 2001 Between: The APSRTC, represented by its Managing Director, Musheerabad, Hyderabad and another. ..Petitioners And Bolleni Gopal ..Respondent PSR, J. W.P.No. 8095 of 2001 O r d e r: This writ petition is filed by the Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation against the order passed by the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Anantapur in I.D.No.316 of 1998. For the sake of convenience the parties herein would be referred to as they are arrayed before the trial court. 2. The petitioner joined APSRTC as a conductor in 1990. On 09—08—1996 a charge sheet was issued to him by the management alleging that he was absent from duty without permission. The charge reads as follows: “For having remained absent to your duties unauthorizedly from 5.6.1996 onwards without prior permission or sanctioned leave from the competent authorities causing inconvenience to the travelling public in this peak season due to dislocation of service which constitutes misconduct under Reg.28 (xxvii) of APSRTC Employees Conduct Regulations, 1963”. On the basis of the above, after conducting due enquiry the petitioner was removed from service. 3. During the trial of the industrial dispute before the lower Court, the court framed the following points for consideration: 1 . Whether the removal of the workman from the service by the respondent/Management is justified? 2. Whether the petitioner is entitled to get reinstatement into service with continuity of service, with back-wages and other attendant benefits? 3. To what relief the petitioner is entitled for?” 4. The Court below held that the charge was - the petitioner was absent from 5—6—1996 onwards. But, during the course of proceedings it was contended that on several occasions the petitioner was absent from duty; the details of these periods of alleged absence were not given and there is no material on record to show that such details were furnished to the petitioner at all. The court below also held that even assuming that the petitioner was absent from duty, the punishment of removal from service is disproportionate and accordingly ordered his reinstatement with continuity of services, but without back-wages. 5. As seen from the order passed by the court below and as contended by the learned counsel for the writ-petitioner, the reasons given by the court below for allowing the industrial dispute are not fully appropriate. However, in view of the fact that the case pertains to the removal of a low paid employee from service and as it was not on account of anything like misappropriation of funds or any other serious misconduct, except abstaining from duty, it is not a case for interference at this stage, particularly in view of the fact that no back-wages are awarded. In the above circumstances, the writ petition does not merit consideration. 6. In the result the writ petition is dismissed. In the circumstances, the parties are directed to bear their own costs. _______________________ P. SWAROOP REDDY, J. Dated:03-12-2010. *BVS