IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 8285 of 2008 Between: N.S. Narayana S/o. Rama Rao R/o. H.No. 14-2-72, Road No.3, Venteswara Colony, Bhadrachalam , Khammam District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Hon'ble Industrial Tribunal -Cum-Labour Court, Rep. by its Presiding Officer, Warangal. 2 The Depot Manager, APSRTC, Sathupally Depot, Khammam DIstrict. .....RESPONDENTS 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 call for the records from the respondents herein by issuing a writ order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of Certiorari by quashing the Award dt. 23-2-2006 in ID No. 45 of 2003 published vide G.O.Rt, No. 710 dt. 10-4-2006 on the file of 1st respondent in so far as disallowing the continuity of service attendant benefits and back wages as perverse illegal, unjust contrary to law and also in violation of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India and to grant all such other benefits and to pass such other order or orders. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.P.SRIDHAR RAO Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR LABOUR The Court made the following : ORDER: The petitioner was employed as Driver in the APSRTC, in the year 1992 and his services were regularized in 1994. The second respondent issued a charge sheet, dated 16.05.2002, alleging that the petitioner remained absent without leave from 04.05.2002 till the date of notice. It was also pointed out that the petitioner remained absent for 26 days between 10.10.2001 and 30.04.2002. The petitioner submitted his explanation narrating the circumstances that gave rise to his absence. Not being satisfied with the explanation, the second respondent ordered departmental enquiry, wherein both the charges were held proved. Through an order, dated 15.06.2002, the second respondent directed removal of the petitioner from service. After unsuccessfully availing remedies of appeal and review, the petitioner filed I.D.No.45 of 2003 before the Labour Court, Warangal, the first respondent herein, under Section 2-A(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Through its award, dated 23.02.2006, the Labour Court had set aside the order of removal and directed the reinstatement of the petitioner, but without continuity of service and back wages. The petitioner feels aggrieved by the denial of service benefits to him. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the second respondent. The Labour Court found that the second charge levelled against the petitioner is not proved. Therefore, the sole basis for the removal of the petitioner was his unauthorized absence for 12 days. The petitioner states that he suffered serious illness. Notwithstanding the same, there existed a lapse on his part, since he did not report the matter to the second respondent within 48 hours, as required under the relevant regulations. It is, no doubt, true that the Labour Court granted the relief to the petitioner by setting aside the order of removal. All the same, denial of the benefit of past service of almost one and half decades to the petitioner for a minor lapse of unauthorized absence for 12 days, cannot be sustained in law. Denial of back wages itself is a serious enough indictment to the petitioner. Hence, the Writ Petition is partly allowed, directing that in addition to reinstatement into service, the petitioner shall be entitled to the benefit of continuity of service, but not the back wages. There shall be no order as to costs. ____________________ Dt.17.04.2008 L.NARASIMHA REDDY, J GJ ..... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1 The Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal -Cum-Labour Court, Warangal. 2 The Depot Manager, APSRTC, Sathupally Depot, Khammam DIstrict. 3 2CCs to the GP for Labour. 4 2CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WP{VSMI}