IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE TWENTY EIGHTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU WRIT PETITION No. 3333 of 2000 Between: A.P.S.R.T.C., Rep by its Depot Manager, Kukatpally, Hyderabad. ..... PETITIONER AND S.M.N. Hussain, E. 52635, Occ: Conductor, R/o. H.No. 12-2-259, Muradnagar, Hyderabad-28. .....RESPONDENT Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court may be pleased to issue a Writ, Order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Certiorari by calling for the records in E.P.No.11 of 1999 in I.D.No. 284 of 1988 dt. 27-01-2000 on the file of the Hon'ble Additional Industrial Tribunal-Cum-Additional Labour Court, Hyderabad and quash the order and pass such other order or orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.K.MADHAVA REDDY Counsel for the Respondent: MR. P. VENKATESHWAR RAO The Court made the following : THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. RAMULU WRIT PETITION No.3333 OF 2000 ORDER: This writ petition is filed challenging the order, dated 27.01.2000, made in E.P.No.11 of 1999 in I.D.No.284 of 1988 on the file of the Additional Industrial Tribunal-cum-Additional Labour Court, Hyderabad. Petitioner is the management and respondent is the workman. Brief facts of the case are that, when the petitioner-management removed the respondent-workman from service, he raised a dispute in I.D.No.284 of 1988, under Section 2-A (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short ‘the Act’), before the Additional Industrial Tribunal- cum-Additional Labour Court, Hyderabad, wherein an award was passed on 01.10.1993 directing the management to reinstate the workman into service without backwages and continuity of service. It was, however, ordered that the past service of the workman should be counted for terminal benefits. The said award attained finality since no appeal was preferred by the management challenging the same. While so, the workman filed E.P.No.11 of 1999 in the said I.D. before the Additional Industrial Tribunal-cum-Additional Labour Court, Hyderabad, praying to attach the vehicle bearing No. AEZ 3753 of the Corporation and any other article that may be found and pointed out by him at the time of execution of warrant, for a sum of Rs.1,34,127/-, towards salary for the period from 18.03.1994 to 17.06.1999, since the management failed to reinstate him in pursuance of the award dated 01.10.1993. It was the case of the respondent-workman that in spite of several representations to the management to reinstate him into service in terms of the award passed by the Additional Labour Court, the management did not reinstate him into service and, as such, the property of the Corporation is liable to be attached for the sum mentioned towards salary for the period from 18.03.1994 to 17.06.1999. The petitioner-management filed a detailed counter denying the allegations made by the respondent-workman and it was asserted that though several communications were sent to the workman asking him to report for duty, he did not turn up. Therefore, he is not entitled for any wages as prayed for. The Additional Labour Court, after hearing both sides and perusing the record, believed that, in pursuance of the award passed by it, the workman reported to duty on 26.11.1998 at Kukatpally Depot, but no appointment order was served on him and, in that regard, the workman addressed several letters to the higher authorities under acknowledgment due. Accordingly, the impugned order was passed directing the management to reinstate the workman into service with effect from 18.03.1994, otherwise it was ordered to attach the bus bearing No.AEZ 3753 of the Corporation or other articles which would be available at the time of execution, for a sum of Rs.1,34,127/- towards salary for the period from 18.03.1994 to 17.06.1999. Aggrieved by the same, the present writ petition is filed by the management. Learned counsel for the petitioner-management strenuously contended that in spite of sending several communications, the respondent-workman did not choose to report for duty. Learned counsel placed before the Court the original communications sent to the workman, which were returned with postal endorsements, as well as the paper publication. Generally speaking, in a case of this nature, the matter must be remanded to the Labour Court for appreciation of the evidence afresh. However, since the learned counsel for the workman did not rebut the contentions of the learned counsel for the management seriously and also in view of the facts and circumstances of the case, I deem it appropriate to give a quietus to this litigation here itself. From a perusal of the record placed by the learned counsel for the petitioner-management, it is clear that, in pursuance of the award dated 01.10.1993 passed by the Additional Labour Court, the management has sent a letter, dated 22.03.1994, by registered post with acknowledgment due, to the address of the workman as was mentioned in the award, directing him to report before Divisional Manager, Hyderabad Division, along with valid Conductor’s license, within a period of seven days from the date of receipt of the said letter, to receive posting orders. But, the same was returned with the postal endorsement ‘addressee not available for 7 days. Therefore returned to the sender’. Thereafter, on 14.05.1994, an office order was issued by the Divisional Manager, Hyderabad, posting the respondent- workman to work at Uppal Depot on reinstatement into service. The said order was sent to the workman by registered post with acknowledgment due, but the same was also returned with the same postal endorsement mentioned above. Thereafter, a notice was also published in the local Urdu Daily ‘Munsif’ on 28.08.1994 informing the workman that if he fails to report for duty within 15 days from the date of publication of the notice, he would have no claim either for reinstatement or for wages whatsoever in future. In spite of the same, the workman did not report to duty. Under those circumstances, I am of the opinion that the finding of the Additional Labour Court that though the workman reported to duty on 26.11.1998 at Kukatpally Depot, no appointment order was served on him, cannot be countenanced. There is no evidence to show that the workman reported to duty on 26.11.1998 at Kukatpally Depot. Further, the workman filed the execution petition after more than five years of passing of the award. This all would go to show that though the management has made several efforts for reinstating the workman into service, in pursuance of the award passed by the Additional Labour Court, he was not available and, therefore, he could not be reinstated into service. Thus, the management cannot be blamed for the same and cannot be mulcted with any wages as was claimed by the workman. For all the above reasons, the impugned order is liable to be set aside and is, accordingly, set aside. If any amounts are deposited by the petitioner-management to the credit of E.P.No.11 of 1999, it is at liberty to withdraw the same. However, any interest drawn by the respondent-workman shall not be recovered. The writ petition is allowed to the extent indicated above. No order as to cots. _________________ JUSTICE C.V. RAMULU 28th February, 2008. IBL To 1. Two CCs to 2. Two CD Copies