IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE TWENTY EIGHTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU WRIT PETITION NO : 13212 of 1999 Between: The Depot Manager, A.P.S.R.T.C., Bus Depot, Asifabad ..... PETITIONER AND 1 SD. Abid Ali S/o Mansu Ali, Near Main Masjid, SPM Old Colony, Qr.No. D. 284, Sirpur Khagaznagar District Adilabad, 2 The Labour court, Rep. by its Presiding Officer, Godavarikhani, .....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 issue any appropriate writ, direction or order particularly a writ in the nature of a writ of certiorari calling for the records pertaining to the Award in I.D.No.4/95 of the Indl.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Godavarikhani dated 2/7/97 and published on 28/7/1997 and quash the same as being illegal, arbitrary and unjust and pass all such other orders as may be deemed just and necessary in the circumstances of the case. Counsel for the Petitioner: SMT.P.RAJANI REDDY Counsel for the Respondent NO.1: None Counsel for the Respondent No.2: GP FOR LABOUR The Court made the following : ORDER This writ petition is filed challenging the award made in I.D.No.4 of 1995 on the file of the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court,Godavarikhani dated 2.7.1997. Petitioner is the Management and 1st respondent is the workman. It appears that while the first respondent was working as Driver in APSRTC Bus Depot, Asifabad,, Adilabad District, he was issued with a charge sheet enumerating the following charges: 1.For having absented yourself unauthorisedly for your duty from 7.12.1993 to till date without any intimation or prior sanction of leave, thereby causing inconvenience to the traveling public and effecting and crew productivity of the unit. 2.For having unauthorisedly absented to duty for 19 days besides availing leave for 28 days during the last six months i.e., from June to December, 1993 resulting dislocation of services besides inconvenience to the traveling public. However, the enquiry was conducted ex parte and the petitioner-Management removed the respondent-workman from service. Challenging the same, the respondent-workman filed a petition under Section 2-A (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short ‘the Act’) before the Labour Court, Godavarikhani stating that no evidence has been recorded and the enquiry was conducted ex parte. Further, the charges are very trivial in nature and they do not deserve punishment of dismissal from service. A detailed counter-affidavit has been filed by the petitioner-Management, denying all the allegations made by the first respondent and supporting the order of removal passed by them. No oral evidence was let in on either side. On behalf of the respondent-workman no documents were marked. However, on behalf of the petitioner-Management, Exs.M1 to M9 were marked. After a detailed consideration of the entire material placed before it, the labour Court came to the conclusion that the domestic enquiry conducted by the petitioner- Management was not valid. It further observed that the petitioner-Management failed to prove the absentism of the workman as it has not produced any evidence to show that the workman was unauthorizedly absent and the burden is on the petitioner- Management. But no evidence was produced against charge No.1. Further, the petitioner-Management also failed to produce any evidence with regard to charge No.2. Therefore, the charges against the workman are not proved as to unauthorized absence, since the workman alleged that though he reported to join duty, he was not allowed by the petitioner-Management. Under those circumstances, the labour Court directed the petitioner-Management to reinstate the respondent-workman with continuity of service and half of the back wages. Learned counsel for the petitioner-Management contended that the workman did not attend the enquiry in spite of service of notice and therefore, enquiry was conducted ex parte. Nothing prevented the petitioner-Management from leading evidence before the labour Court to show that the notice was served on the workman for his unauthorized absence and an ex parte enquiry was taken up only in view of the fact that the respondent-workman did not participate in the enquiry. But, absolutely, there is no such evidence placed before the labour Court. The Management failed to avail the opportunity given to it before the labour Court, under such circumstances, the findings of the labour Court that the Management failed to prove the charge cannot be said to be either incorrect or illegal. Under those circumstances, I am of the opinion that the labour Court has not committed any error calling for interference of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Writ petition is devoid of merits and is liable to be dismissed. Writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed. No costs. __________ 28-03-2008 rkk ..... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1. The Labour court, Rep. by its Presiding Officer, Godavarikhani, 2.2CD copies