IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY SIXTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION NO : 4780 of 1999 Between: 1 APSRTC rep.by its Managing Director, Mushirabad, Hyderabad. 2 The Depot Manager, APSRTC , BHEL Depot, Medak District. ..... PETITIONER(S) AND 1 Md. Azeemuddin, S/o. Mohd. Moinudin, H.No. 9-11-182/20, Gimsibazar, Golkonda Fort, Hyderabad. 2 Labour Court-II, rep.by its Presiding Officer. Hyderabad .....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, especially in the nature of Writ of Certiorari, calling for the records relating to the impugned order dt. 24- 10-97 in M.P. No. 20/95 on the file of Laobur Court-II Hyderabad, and quash the same as being illegal, without jurisdiction and invalid, Counsel for the Petitioner:SMT.B.G.UMA DEVI Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR LABOUR The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION No.4780 of 1999 ORDER: Aggrieved by the order of the Labour Court-II, Hyderabad in M.P.No.20 of 1995 dated 24.10.1997 the present writ petition is filed. The 1s t respondent was a driver working with the petitioner – Corporation. Pursuant to a departmental enquiry held against him, and on his being found guilty of the charges levelled against him of causing an accident, he was imposed the punishment of removal from service by order dated 29.5.1995. Claiming wages for the period from 2.11.1994 to 3.6.1995 i.e., date on which the order of removal was communicated to him, the 1st respondent invoked the jurisdiction of the Labour Court. Before the Labour Court, the petitioner herein contended that the 2nd respondent was disengaged from 2.11.1994, that he was working as a temporary driver with wages of Rs.67/- per day, that every such temporary daily wage employee works for 26 days per month and, as he was disengaged, he was not entitled for wages as claimed by him. The petitioner also contended that the quantum of monthly salary and incentive claimed by the 1st respondent was not correct. The Labour Court noted that the 1st respondent, while driving the bus between Gandipet and Mehdipatnam on 2.11.1994, was involved in an accident, that his services were not utilized thereafter, that a domestic enquiry was conducted and the petitioner was removed from service by order dated 29.5.1995 and that a copy of the order of removal was served on the 1st respondent workman on 3.6.1995. The Labour Court, relying on a judgment of this Court in Depot Manager, APSRTC v. The Addl.Labour Court, Hyderabad[1] held that when a workman was disengaged on charges of misconduct, and on an enquiry conducted against him, the relationship of workman and employer subsists from the date of his being engaged in the service till the date of passing of the final orders. The Labour Court held that the petitioner was entitled for wages from 2.11.1994 to 29.5.1995. The amount was computed at Rs.13,936/- which was directed to be paid with costs. The Labour Court held that, if the amount was not paid within 30 days, the 1st respondent was entitled for interest at 12% on the ordered amount. Smt. B.G.Umadevi, Learned Standing Counsel for the Corporation, would state that the 1st respondent workman was a daily wage employee, that his services were disengaged from 2.11.1994, that he was no longer an employee of the Corporation and as such was not entitled to be paid any wages whatsoever. Learned Standing Counsel would refer to the averments in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition that, at best, the period of disengagement could be treated as “put off duty” in which event also the 1st respondent would be entitled only for payment of subsistence allowance. These contentions are merely to be noted to be rejected. It is well to remember that what is under challenge in this writ petition is the order of the Labour Court in M.P.No.20 of 1995 dated 24.10.1997. In certiorari proceedings this Court would not be justified in looking into material placed before it for the first time or to deal with contentions not raised earlier before the Labour Court, for it is only when the order/award of the Labour Court suffers from any patent illegality or error apparent on the face of the record, would interference in certiorari proceedings be justified. The petitioner herein had merely contended before the Labour Court that the 1st respondent was a temporary daily wage driver, that he was engaged on wages of Rs.67/- and that, after he had caused an accident on 2.11.1994, his services were not utilized. The fact, however, remains that the petitioner herein conducted a departmental enquiry, and on the 1st respondent being found guilty, imposed on him the punishment of removal from service. An enquiry would be held into charges of misconduct only if an employer-employee relationship subsisted and the very fact that a departmental enquiry was held would itself show that the petitioner-Corporation considered the 1st respondent to be its employee. Whatever may be the reason for disengaging the services of the 1st respondent, in the absence of any order of suspension being passed, it cannot be presumed that the 1st respondent workman was placed under suspension. In such circumstances, as rightly held by the Labour Court, he is entitled for wages from the date of his disengagement till the date on which the order of punishment was communicated to him. The Labour Court has, in fact, restricted the amount payable only till the date of the order of removal and has denied the workman wages for the period of six days from the date on which the order of removal was passed till the date on which the said order was communicated to him. I find no reason to interfere with the order of the Labour Court. The writ petition fails and is, accordingly, dismissed. Needless to state that in accordance with the order of the Labour Court, the 1st respondent shall be entitled to be paid Rs.13,936/- with costs of Rs.300/- and interest at 12% per annum after 30 days of the order of the Labour Court. No order as to costs. __________ 26-3-2008 asp [1] 1993(2) ALT 143