IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE TWENTY FIFTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR WRIT PETITION No.15776 of 2001 BETWEEN The Singareni Collieries Co. Ltd. and another. ... PETITIONERS AND Kukka Gauraiah and another. ...RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioners: MR. K. SRINIVASA MURTHY Counsel for the Respondent No.1: SMT. S.A.V. RATNAM Counsel for the Respondent No.2: GP FOR LABOUR The Court made the following: ORDER: This writ petition is filed by the Singareni Collieries Company Limited – petitioner, which, admittedly, had employed the first respondent as Badli Filler on piece rate wages against the absenteeism vacancies of permanent Coal Fillers. The office order of appointment dated 06/10.03.1995 records that appointment is made subject to verification of antecedents and if adverse reports are received from the police authorities, on verification, the appointment is liable to be cancelled. 2. The first respondent appears to have worked from the date of appointment till the adverse report dated 10.01.1996 from the police authorities was received by the petitioner-company. Based on the said report, the first respondent was discharged from service by proceedings of the petitioner-company dated 16/21.02.1996. The first respondent questioned the said order of discharge by approaching the Industrial Tribunal in I.D.No.15 of 1999 and under the impugned award, the said ID has been allowed directing the petitioner to be reinstated into service but without backwages on the ground that the first respondent approached the tribunal after more than 2½ years. 3. Since the said award of the tribunal is questioned by the petitioner in this writ petition, I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel appearing for the first respondent. 4. The order of appointment, referred to above, is clearly conditional and subject to the verification of antecedents of the appointee. The order itself states that if adverse report is received from the police authorities, the appointment is liable to be cancelled. The said appointment, therefore, being conditional and not a permanent appointment of the first respondent, on the face of it, the action of the petitioner-company in discharging the first respondent on the basis of adverse police verification report appears to be in confirmity with the order of appointment itself. The tribunal, however, set aside the said order of discharge only on the ground that the first respondent was not given an opportunity to defend himself against the report of the police authorities. 5. Learned counsel for the first respondent also contends that keeping in view the principles of natural justice and the fact that the first respondent was employed only as Badli worker in the petitioner-company and there being no serious charges against him, disengagement of the first respondent is not justified and the tribunal below has rightly directed reinstatement. 6. Sympathies in the case have no place, as the legal principle with respect to the conditional appointment is well settled. The question of principles of natural justice also has no role to play when the order of appointment itself is conditional, which was accepted by the first respondent and he worked with the petitioner-company. The said order of appointment being subject to favourable police verification report with regard to character and antecedents of the appointee, the first respondent cannot insist on an opportunity to defend himself against the said report. It is also evident from the said order of discharge that the said discharge does not amount to any punishment nor it amounts to stigmatic termination, but is a consequence of the condition of the order of appointment itself. This Court in similar situation had upheld similar order of discharge in WP.No.26737 of 1995 dated 01.11.1999, which was also confirmed by a Division Bench in W.A.No.28 of 2000 dated 01.03.2000. The facts of the present case being similar to the aforesaid decision, the impugned award cannot be sustained and it is accordingly set aside. The writ petition is accordingly allowed, as prayed for. There shall be no order as to costs. _____________________ VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR, J February 25, 2011 DSK