IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE TWENTY EIGHTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO WRIT PETITION NO : 36957 of 1998 Between: The Depot Manager, APSRTC Bus Depot, Narayankhed Medak District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 S. Manazaruddin S/o. Syed Saduddin E.No.40757, Post Koudipally, Vill. Kanwaram, Medak District. 2 The Presiding Officer, Labour Court-II, Andhra Pradesh, 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.68/94 dated 3.4.1997 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.A.K.JAYAPRAKASH RAO The Court made the following : ORDER : This writ petition has been preferred by the Depot Manager, Narayankhed Depot of the APSRTC, a State owned Transport Organisation calling in question the correctness of the award passed by the Labour Court in ID No. 68 of 1994 raised by the 1st respondent- workman. The 1st respondent while working as Driver was removed from service as a measure of punishment on 13.9.1993. The graveman of the charges leveled against the 1st respondent related to his unauthorized absence between 19th to 22nd December, 1992. It is also sought to be alleged that he has subsequently stayed away from duty between 15.5.1993 to 13.9.1993. The explanation offered by the 1st respondent is that for certain compelling reasons and circumstances, he has submitted his leave application and was under the impression that the same would be sanctioned as a matter of routine and that he did not know of the fact that his leave has not been acceded to. The matter has been considered by the Tribunal and by its award dated 3.4.1997 set aside the order of removal passed against the 1st respondent and directed him to reinstate into service with all benefits like continuity of service and denied him backwages. The learned Standing Counsel for the APSRTC informed that the 1st respondent has since been reinstated into duty on 20.3.19988 and that he had also retired on attaining the age of superannuation on 31.10.2001. No doubt it is true that the 1st respondent-workman has been reinstated back to duty as a driver only due to the award passed by the Labour Court in I.D.No.68 of 1994 on 3.4.1997. But the fact remains that he had already attained the age of superannuation and has retired from service also and consequently the issue relating to his reinstatement into service perhaps becomes a purely academic question now. The Labour Court has denied the 1st respondent-workman the benefit of payment of backwages for the period he was kept out of employment pursuant to the orders of termination effected on 13.9.1993. Thus, the 1st respondent- workman had been denied a substantial benefit for his misconduct of staying away from duty as well. The Corporation as an employer has got every right to discipline its employees particularly staff such as drivers and conductors if they stay away from duty unauthorisedly as the same can lead to enormous operational difficulties. Sometimes it effects the very reputation of the organization reflecting its failure to run its services on time. Therefore, unauthorized absence of the staff like drivers and conductors in a transport organization is liable to be viewed with a sense of seriousness. But, at the same time, it shall not be forgotten that unauthorized absence, if the same is due to compelling circumstances such as ill-health of self or any of the dependants of the family or any other tragic circumstances is not liable to be viewed with complete disfavour. There should be a right balance that should be struck between the erring absentee and the interests of the organization. That is where the scale of punishments which have been incorporated in Rule 8 of the APSRTC Conduct, Discipline and Appeal Rules has a significant role to play. Rule 8 of the APSRTC CDA Rules lists out the various punishments commencing from censure ending up with dismissal. Therefore, employers also should not resort to punishments of removal or dismissal alone everytime without exploring the usefulness and effectiveness of imposing the other punishments listed out in Rule 8 which perhaps would have met the situation. This exercise of discretion is also a part of larger exercise of proportionality doctrine. Punishments must not only meet the offender, but must squarely be proportionate to the quantum of guilt held established. Therefore, the employers also are not liable to resort to imposing the punishment of removal/dismissal from service without carefully assessing the proportionality of the guilt/misconduct of the employee concerned and the effectiveness of imposing any other punishment authorized to be imposed in terms of Rule 8 of the APSRTC CDA Rules. In this view of the matter, I do not find any justifiable reason to interfere with the discretion exercised by the Labour Court, particularly so in view of the fact that the 1st respondent-workman had already attained the age of superannuation. Hence, Writ Petition is dismissed, but, however, without costs. -------------------------------------- N.RAMAMOHANA RAO,J Dt : 28.2.2008 knk ..... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1.2CCs to 2.2CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WP{JPK}