THE HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G. ROHINI WRIT PETITION No.2173 OF 2006 Dated: 16.09.2009 Between ; M. Premsagar … petitioner And 1. The Depot Manager, APSRTC, Utnoor Depot, Adilabad District And another. … Respondents THE HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G. ROHINI WRIT PETITION No.2173 OF 2006 ORDER : This writ petition is filed seeking a Certiorari to call for the records relating to the Award dated 6.2.2002 in I.D.No.50 of 2001 on the file of Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Godavarikhani and to quash the same being arbitrary and illegal. The petitioner was appointed as a Conductor in the A.P. State Road Transport Corporation at Utnoor Depot in the year 1990. By order dated 31.8.1999 the petitioner was removed from service on the ground that he had contravened Regulation 25 of the APSRTC Employees (Conduct) Regulations, 1963 (for short, ‘the Regulations’) which provides that no employee, who has a wife living shall contract another marriage. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner filed I.D.No.50 of 2001 under Section 2-A(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short, ‘I.D. Act, 1947’). However he did not choose to adduce any evidence and failed to appear either in person or through counsel. The Corporation, having filed a counter-affidavit opposing the petitioner’s claim, got marked EXs.M-1to M-24 documents. On appreciation of the material available on record, the Labour Court upheld the punishment of removal and accordingly dismissed I.D.No.50 of 2001. Challenging the said award dated 6.2.2002, this writ petition has been filed in February, 2006. It is primarily contended that the allegation that the petitioner had contracted a second marriage is factually incorrect and without any basis and in the absence of any acceptable evidence to establish the alleged contravention of Regulation 25 of the Regulations, the Labour Court erred in upholding the punishment of removal. The material on record shows that Smt. M. Tara, wife of the petitioner, made a complaint before the Regional Manager, Adilabad, alleging that the petitioner had contracted a second marriage. Pursuant thereto, a preliminary enquiry was conducted and on the basis of the report dated 12.5.1998 the Depot Manager, Utnoor issued a charge-sheet calling upon the petitioner to submit his explanation to the following charge: “For having married another lady by name Smt. Jayasheela working as Health Assistant in Primary Health Centre, Karamary, without obtaining prior permission from the competent authority, though you are having living wife by name Smt. M. Thara which amounts to misconduct under Reg. No.25 (1) of APSRTC Employees Conduct Regulations, 1963.” The charge-sheet was served on 15.7.1998 and the petitioner submitted his explanation denying the charge. Pursuant thereto, the Regional Manager, Adilabad conducted an enquiry in which the statement of the Complainant Smt. M. Tara was recorded on 13.1.1999. Though the petitioner was present, he did not choose to cross-examine the Complainant. The statement of the Officer who conducted the preliminary enquiry was also recorded and on the basis of the same, the Regional Manger, Adilabad, vide report dated 22.3.1999 held that the charge was proved since the petitioner himself had admitted in the preliminary enquiry of having contracted a second marriage since he had no children through his first wife. The said report of the Regional Manager was marked as Ex.M-14 before the Labour Court. The Preliminary Enquiry Report was marked as Ex.M- 7. On appreciation of the said material and in the absence of any evidence on behalf of the petitioner, the Labour Court concluded that the punishment of removal from service was justified. Having heard the learned counsel for both the parties and having perused the material on record and keeping in view that the petitioner himself admitted during the preliminary enquiry that he had contracted a second marriage, I am unable to hold that the Tribunal below committed any error in dismissing I.D.No.50 of 2001. Since the evidence available on record is sufficient to establish the charge, the impugned award cannot be held to be arbitrary or illegal on any ground whatsoever and the interference by this Court is unwarranted. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed. No costs. ______________ G. ROHINI, J. Dt. 16.09.2009 gbs