THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU WRIT PETITION No.27620 of 2007 Dated: 07.06.2010 Between: The Managing Director, APSRTC, Musheerabad, Hyderabad, And others. .. Petitioners. And Nanavath Pandu and others. .. Respondents. ORDER: This writ petition is directed against award dated 05.02.2007 passed by the Labour Court-III, Hyderabad, in I.D.No. 122 of 2005. Petitioners are the management, respondent No.1 (since died) was the workman and respondents 2 to 5 are his legal representatives. It appears, on the basis of the report of the Deputy Superintendent of Devarakonda Depot to the effect that the 1st respondent, who was appointed as driver on 06.05.1985 in the Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation, has absented to duties from 24.12.2002 to 27.12.2002 and from 03.01.2003 to 05.01.2003 without any intimation and that he was not available to duties for 75 days during the period from 01.01.2002 to 31.12.2002, the deceased workman was issued with charge sheet dated 09.01.2003 enumerating the following charges:- “1. For having absented to your duties from 24.12.2002 to 27.12.2002 and from 03.01.2003 to 05.01.2003 unauthorisedly without intimation or without obtaining prior sanction of leave or without producing valid sick certificate within time stipulated, resulting in the dislocation of operation of services/cancellation of KMs, loss of revenues of the Corporation, besides inconvenience to the traveling public, which constitutes misconduct under Reg.4 and 28 (xxvii) of APSRTC Employees (Conduct) Reg. 1963. 2. For having not available for services for 75 days during the period from 01.01.2002 to 31.12.2002 by availing 36 days leave and remained absent for 39 days causing dislocation of services, loss of revenues to the Corporation which amounts to irregular attendance and, which constitutes misconduct under Reg.4 and 28 (xxvii) of APSRTC Employees (Conduct) Reg. 1963.” After submission of the explanation of the workman and after conducting a detailed enquiry into the matter, the Enquiry Officer submitted a report holding the workman guilty of the charges leveled against him. The disciplinary authority, after completing all the formalities, finally passed order dated 12.11.2003 removing the workman from service. Aggrieved thereby, the workman filed an appeal to the Divisional Manager, Nalgonda, against the removal orders, however during pendency of the said appeal, the workman died on 25.04.2004. Thereafter, the legal heirs of the deceased workman filed I.D.No.122 of 2005 on the file of the Labour Court-III, Hyderabad. It was the case of the legal heirs of the deceased workman before the Labour Court that the removal order dated 12.11.2003 is illegal and disproportionate to that of the charges framed against the deceased workman and, therefore, the same is liable to be set aside. It was the case of the management before the Labour Court that the explanation submitted by the deceased workman was not satisfactory and, therefore, the punishment of removal is proportionate and reasonable to that of the charges leveled against him. Before the Labour Court, on behalf of the workman, none was examined and no documents were marked. On behalf of the management, none was examined, however documents Exs.M1 to M10 were marked. The Labour Court, on an examination of the entire material placed before it, came to the conclusion that charge No.1 is proved for mistake only for unauthorized absence and without any element of misconduct. With regard to charge No.2, it was held that the same is not proved since it is vague in nature, and accordingly, passed the impugned award dated 05.02.2007 setting aside the order dated 12.11.2003 and ordering to treat the death of the deceased workman on 25.04.2004 as death in harness by considering the service of the deceased upto the date of his death. It was further ordered that the legal heirs of the deceased workman are entitled for terminal benefits on the death of the deceased by taking the service upto 25.04.2004, excluding backwages and attendant benefit from 12.11.2003 to 25.04.2004. Aggrieved thereby, the management preferred this writ petition. Sri Sunil Kumar Reddy representing Sri V.Narasimha Goud, learned counsel appearing for the management, strenuously contended that the deceased workman was absented to duties for more than 75 days during the periods mentioned in the charges leveled against him and therefore, considering the gravity of the charges, the Labour Court ought not to have interfered with the order of removal dated 12.11.2003 passed by the management. Apart from this, the Labour Court has made certain comments that are unwarranted. It is to be noted from the second charge referred to supra that the deceased workman has not attended to duties for 75 days during the period from 01.01.2002 to 31.12.2002, out of which he availed leave for 36 days and remained absent for remaining 39 days. However, the period from 01.01.2002 to 31.12.2002 shown in the second charge includes the period from 24.12.2002 to 27.12.2002 shown in the first charge as unauthorized absence of the deceased workman. Thus, insofar as the first charge is concerned, absenteeism of the deceased workman from 03.01.2003 to 05.01.2003 alone can be considered, and he can be said to have not attended to duties for 78 days, in all, during the period from 01.01.2002 to 31.12.2002, out of which he availed leave for 36 days and remained absent for the remaining days, and also the period from 03.01.2003 to 05.01.2003. This was enquired into by the management, for which the deceased stated that the reason for his absence is of his ill-health. Admittedly, the deceased workman was appointed as a driver in the year 1985 and put in more than 25 years of clean service and, therefore, the deceased workman could not have been removed from service for the charges leveled against him. Therefore, I am of the considered opinion that the Labour Court has not committed any error in passing the impugned award calling for interference of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and the writ petition is, therefore, devoid of merits. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. _____________ C.V.RAMULU,J 07.06.2010 v v