IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION NO : 25240 of 1998 Between: The Depot Manager A.P.S.R.T.C., Mehdipatnam Depot, Hyderabad. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 M. Yadaiah S/o. Late Eshwaraiah C/o. Mohd. Gouse Mohinuddin, H.No. 3-3-405, Chappal Bazar, Hyderabad. 2 The Labour Court-I, Andhra Pradesh Rep. by its Presiding Officer. Hyderabad. .....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 to issue an appropraite writ, order or direction, especially in the nature of a writ of certiorari, calling for the records relating to the impugned award dt. 21.5.1997 made in I.D.No. 97/94, Labour Court-I, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad, published on 8.7.97, directing reinstaterment of 1st respondent into service with all attendant beneﬁts with 25% back wages from the date of the petition till the date of reinstatement, and quash the same as being illegal, without jurisdiction and invalid, and pass such other and further orders to meet the ends of justice. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.K.MADHAVA REDDY Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR LABOUR The Court made the following : THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION No.25240 OF 1998 ORDER: Aggrieved by the award of the Labour Court –I, Hyderabad, in I.D.No.97 of 1994 dated 21.5.1997, directing the 1st respondent to be reinstated into service with 25% back wages from the date of the petition till the date of reinstatement, the Depot Manager, APSRTC, Mehdipatnam, has invoked the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. During the pendency of the writ petition, the 1st respondent died, and on an application being ﬁled, his widow and all the three sons were brought on record as respondents 3 to 5. Facts, in brief, are that the 1 st respondent was a driver at the Mehdipatnam depot of the petitioner – Corporation. On a complaint received by the Assistant Manager that the petitioner was absent from duty without intimation, or prior sanction of leave, resulting in dislocation of services, a charge sheet dated 21.1.1991 was issued containing the following charges: “For having remained absent for duty from 13.11.1990 to till date without any intimation or prior sanction of leave resulting in the dislocation of scheduled services of the depot, inconvenience to traveling public and loss of revenue to Corporation, which constitutes misconduct in terms of the Reg.28(xxvii) of APSRTC Employees (Conduct) Regulations, 1963” The 1st respondent submitted his explanation on 5.2.1991 informing that he had met with an accident on 15.11.1990 and that he had informed the Depot Manager by telephone that he was undergoing treatment. He further stated that his absence from duty was neither willful nor deliberate. A disciplinary enquiry was held and, on the charge being established, show cause notice dated 18.4.1991 was issued asking the petitioner to show cause why he should not be removed from service. The 1st respondent submitted his explanation thereto on 13.6.1991. Final orders were passed on 17.6.1991 removing him from service. The 1st respondent preferred a review petition to the Regional Manager which was rejected by order dated 22.7.1994. Nearly three years after his removal from service, the 1st respondent ﬁled an application under Section 2-A(2) of the I.D. Act before the Labour Court, Hyderabad questioning the punishment of removal from service. Before the Labour Court, Exs.W.1 and 2 were marked on behalf of the 1 st respondent-workman whereas the petitioner herein marked Exs.M.1 to M.11. However, no oral evidence was adduced by either parties. The Labour Court upheld the domestic enquiry by order dated 31.5.1996. In exercise of its jurisdiction under Section 11-A, the Labour Court observed that Exs.W.1 and W.2 showed that the absence of the petitioner, for the relevant period, was on account of his sickness as a result of an accident, that he was also suﬀering from jaundice and that the 1st respondent could not be said to have committed any act of misconduct much less could his absence be treated as unauthorized. Taking into consideration the totality of the facts and circumstances, the Labour Court observed that the impugned order of removal from service was neither just nor sustainable. The Labour Court, however, denied the 1 st respondent back wages to the extent of 75% and passed an award directing the petitioner herein to reinstate the 1st respondent petitioner with all attendant beneﬁts like continuity of service with 25% back wages from the date of the petition till the date of his reinstatement. While Sri K.Madhava Reddy, Learned Counsel for the Petitioner, would contend that unauthorized absence from duty not only causes dislocation of work in the organization but also results in indiscipline, Sri S.Raju, Learned Counsel for respondents 3 to 5, would vehemently contend that the award of the Labour Court had resulted in denial of back wages to the 1st respondent for a period of 4 years prior to his ﬁling the application under Section 2-A(2) and for nearly 3 years thereafter and that such denial of back wages, for justiﬁed absence of 3 ½ months on account of accident and illness on account of jaundice, was unduly harsh. Learned Counsel would submit that the 1st respondent, on account of his poor ﬁnancial condition, was not in a position to challenge the award before this Court and that there was no reason, whatsoever, to interfere with the award in the present writ petition. Learned Counsel would also point out that the petitioner had died in the interregnum and that any interference by this Court would result in his widow being deprived of the terminal beneﬁts which the deceased 1st respondent was entitled to. As noted hereinabove, the petitioner was issued charge memo dated 21.1.1991 for his having remained absent from duty from 13.11.1990 i.e., for a period of less than 3 ½ months. His justiﬁcation that he had suﬀered an accident, and that he was also undergoing treatment for jaundice, found acceptance with the Labour Court. The Labour Court has not only denied the 1st respondent wages in its entirety from the date of his removal from service on 17.6.1991 till he ﬁled the application under Section 2-A(2) in the year 1994, but has also denied him 75% back wages from 1994 till he was directed to be reinstated consequent to the award passed on 21.5.1997. For the period of absence for 3 ½ months the Labour Court denied wages to the 1st respondent for a period of three years till he approached the Labour Court and, in eﬀect, for a period in excess of 2 years after he ﬁled the application till the award was passed. I see no error apparent on the face of the award necessitating interference in exercise of the extra-ordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, more so as the 1st respondent has also died during the pendency of proceedings before the Labour Court. The Writ petition fails and is, accordingly, dismissed. However, in the circumstances, without costs. _____________ 17-9-2008 asp