HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE T. MEENA KUMARI WRIT PETITION No.5146 of 2000 ORDER: Seeking to quash the order dated 27th March, 1999 in Case No. SA 12/98 of the Deputy Commissioner of Labour-cum-Authority under Section 48(1) of the A.P Shops & Establishment Act, 1988, the petitioner filed the present writ petition. It is the case of the petitioner that he was appointed as Assistant Cameraman on 1.1.1986 by the 1st respondent and was drawing a salary of Rs.2,000/-. According to the petitioner, as his father fell ill on 13.3.1996, he took oral permission from the Chief Operator and went home; that 14.3.1996 was his weekly off and on 15.3.1996, he applied for leave, which was not sanctioned. He was also prevented from attending to work. While so, on 15.3.1996, the respondents without issuing any notice and without conducting any enquiry, terminated the services of the petitioner. Thereafter, the petitioner sent a letter dated 27.3.1996 to the 1st respondent management seeking to reinstate him into service. When the 1st respondent did not take any action on the said representation, the petitioner filed a case before the authority under Section 48(1) of the A.P. Shops and Establishments Act, 1988 and Assistant Commissioner of Labour-IIII Hyderabad, which was numbered as S.E. No. 11 of 1996 seeking reinstatement into service. Before the Assistant Commissioner, while opposing the claim of the petitioner, the respondent-management filed a counter stating that on 13.3.1996 the petitioner picked up a quarrel with a co-employee, abused him in un-parliamentary language and threatened him with dire consequences. Thereafter, he left the organisation on his own. It is further stated that even though the petitioner was called upon to report for duty on 15.4.1996, the petitioner did not report for duty. Since the petitioner himself abandoned the employment, the petitioner is not entitled to notice pay, gratuity and other benefits. The learned Assistant Commissioner, through order dated 2.3.1998, allowed the case and directed the respondent management to reinstate the petitioner into service with full back wages and continuity of service. Challenging the said order, the 1st respondent management filed an appeal before the Deputy Commissioner of Labour, Hyderabad. Through order dated 27.3.1999, the Deputy Commissioner allowed the said appeal by setting aside the orders of the Assistant Commissioner. The Deputy Commissioner while directing the management to treat the absence period as loss of pay, but however held that the same can be counted for the purpose of retirement/superannuation benefits. Aggrieved by th said order, the petitioner filed the present writ petition. On a perusal of the order of the Deputy Commissioner, it is seen that the petitioner himself absented from duty without obtaining any prior sanction or leave from the respondent management and even though the respondent- management directed the petitioner to report for duty, he did not report for duty. It is also seen from the record that on 14.9.198, during the course of the hearing of the appeal, the respondent-management very categorically stated before the Deputy Commissioner that it did not terminate the services of the petitioner and the petitioner can report for duty. Subsequently, the petitioner has reported for duty on 16.9.1998 and had been discharging his duties even as on the date of disposal of the appeal by the Deputy Commissioner, through the impugned order dated 27.3.1999. In the circumstances, I do not find any reason to interfere with the impugned order of the Deputy Commissioner. The writ petition fails and it is accordingly dismissed. No costs. ___________________ T.MEENA KUMARI,J Date:29th July, 2010 pnb