IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE FOURTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION NO : 36971 of 1998 Between: The Depot Manager, A.P.S.R.T.C., Siddipet. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 Afzal Hakeem S/o Mohd. Abdul Gaffar, R/o. 3-4-105, Patelpura, Near Bus Station, Karimnagar Rao, Siddipet, Andhra Pradesh. 2 The Presiding Officer, Labour Court-II, A.P., 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 call for the records relating to the award in I.D.No.205/93 dated 1.3.97 on the file of the Labour Court-II Hyderabad and quash the same as arbitrary, illegal by way of issue of writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ or order or orders as the Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case Counsel for the Petitioner:SMT.B.G.UMA DEVI Counsel for the Respondent No.: MR.SARIKONDA RAMAKRISHNA The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION No. 36971 of 1998 ORDER: On the ground that he was absent from duty unauthorizedly without permission from 08.05.1992 to 24.07.1992, the first respondent was proceeded against departmentally and, on the enquiry officer holding the charges to have been held established, he was imposed the punishment of removal from service by proceedings dated 30.12.1992. The appeal preferred thereagainst was rejected. Aggrieved thereby, the first respondent invoked the jurisdiction of the Labour Court under Section 2-A(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act. The Labour Court, taking into consideration the fact that the first respondent had submitted a sick certificate for the said period pleading that he was sick and that he had undergone treatment, held that this contention was not accepted by the enquiry officer and that the enquiry officer had held that, if the first respondent had really been sick, he would have definitely sent the certificate earlier and that nothing prevented him from reporting at APSRTC hospital at Tarnaka for treatment. The Labour Court held that the illness was opined, by the enquiry officer as well as by the respondent to be an after thought to cover up the first respondent’s absence. The Labour Court, however, placing reliance on Exs. M-13, M-14 and M-15 held that the absence of the workman was for just cause and that it could not be said that he committed any acts of misconduct. The Labour Court held that the punishment of removal was harsh and disproportionate. The order of removal was set aside and the petitioner herein directed to reinstate the first respondent into service with all benefits but without back wages. Smt. B.G. Umadevi, learned Standing Counsel for the Corporation, would contend that Exs.M-13 and M-15 letters dated 28.12.1992 were received after the enquiry had commenced and that failure on the part of the workman to submit his leave application before proceeding on leave, or soon thereafter, would necessitate the conclusion that he had unauthorizedly abstained from duty. Learned Counsel would state that for such unauthorized absence, of a period of two and half months, the punishment of removal from service cannot be said to be without justification. While it is no doubt true that failure on the part of the first respondent-workman to seek sanction of leave or to have atleast sought for medical leave soon after his having proceeded on leave would necessitate the conclusion that the period of his absence is unauthorized, the fact, remains that for such unauthorized absence the Labour Court has substituted the punishment of removal from service to that of denial of back wages of more than four years. The punishment as substituted by the Labour Court does not necessitate interference in certiorari proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. I see no reason to interfere with the Award of the Labour Court more so on the quantum of punishment as the Labour Court has been conferred the power to modify the punishment under Section 11-A of the Act. The writ petition is without merit and is, accordingly, dismissed. However, in the circumstances, without costs. _______________________________ Date: 02.04.2008 RAMESH RANGANATHAN, J MRKR To 1.2CCs to 2.2CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WP{GSNM}