IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE TENTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH WRIT PETITION NO : 17825 of 2005 Between: A.P.S.R.T.C. rep by its Depot Manager, Ramachandrapuram, East Godavari District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 J.V. Janaki Reddy, S/o. Late Issayya, E. 58398, Ramachandrapuram, East Godavari District. 2 Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Visakhapatnam Rep by its Chairman & Presiding Officer .....RESPONDENTS 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 issue any writ, order or directions, more particularly a writ of Certiorari calling for the records relating to the impugned Award dt. 25-1-2005 in I.D.No. 68/2002 on the ﬁle of the Industrial Tribunal-Cum-Labour Court, Visakhapatnam and declaring the same in allowing the petition and directing the Management to reinstate the 1st respondent herein with continuity of service and with 50% of backwages and also awarding costs of an amount Rs.500/- as illegal, arbitrary, unjust and without jurisdiction and consequently quashs the same and to pass such order or orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.K.MADHAVA REDDY Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR LABOUR The Court made the following : IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE TENTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH WRIT PETITION NO : 22539 of 2005 Between: J.V.Janaki Reddy, s/o late Issayya, A.P.S.R.T.C,Bearing E.No.58398, R/o H.No.11-3-5, Church Compound, Ramachandrapuram, East Godavari District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Visakhapatnam represented by its Chairman and Presiding Officer 2 Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation, represented by its Depot Manager, Ramachandrapuram depot, East Godavari District. .....RESPONDENTS 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 issue a writ, order or direction, one particularly in the nature of writ of certiorari calling for the records pertaining to the Award dated 25-1-2005 in I.D.no.68 of 2002 on the ﬁle of the respondent No.1 is illegal, arbitrary, so far as not granting the full back wages and to direct the respondent No.2 to pay the full back wages to me and pass such other order or orders as this Honourable Court deems ﬁt and proper in the circumstances of the case. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.K.SOMESWARA KUMAR Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR LABOUR The Court made the following : COMMON ORDER: W.P. Nos.17825 and 22539 of 2005 have been ﬁled by the APSRTC, represented by its Manager, Ramachandrapuram, East Godavari District, and the workman, who is the 1st respondent in W.P. No.17825 of 2005, respectively, aggrieved by award dated 25-01-2005 passed in I.D. No.68 of 2002 by the Industrial Tribunal cum Labour Court, Visakhapatnam, (for short ‘the learned Tribunal’). As both the writ petitions have been ﬁled aggrieved by the same award, these two petitions can be disposed of by this common order. Brief facts of the case are that the workman was appointed as a Conductor in the Corporation, East Godavari District, on 15-02-1988. Due to unauthorized absence, disciplinary action was taken against the workman and he was removed from the service on 05-02-2000. It is submitted that on account of ill health he applied for medical leave through his colleague and the Management received it. In spite of that they have issued charge sheet against him alleging that he was unauthorisedly absent from duties from 15-03-1999 to 12-04- 1999 and caused loss to the Corporation and inconvenience to the passengers. It is also submitted that the Management has not given any opportunity to the petitioner to explain his situation during enquiry. Therefore, the domestic enquiry conducted against him is bad in law. It is submitted that he ﬁled an appeal against the removal order before the Deputy Chief Traﬃc Manager and he rejected the appeal vide his orders dated 24- 05-2000. Further, the Regional Manager on 11-09-2000 also rejected the review application. After exhausting all the remedies he was constrained to raise the dispute before the learned Tribunal in I.D. No.68 of 2002. It is further submitted that the punishment imposed against him is shockingly disproportionate. Therefore, he may be reinstated with back wages. The Corporation ﬁled counter denying the allegations made in the petition. After considering the evidence on record, the learned Tribunal held that the workman is entitled to reinstatement with 50% of back wages from the date of removal till the date of reinstatement. Further, the Management was directed to reinstate the workman with continuity of service and with 50% of back wages and the petition was allowed with costs of Rs.500/-. Assailing the same, the Corporation and the workman preferred two separate instant writ petitions. Learned standing counsel appearing for the Corporation contended that the workman was removed from the service on the ground of unauthorized absence and the authorities under the Regulations have considered the facts and circumstances of the case and passed appropriate orders that the act of workman was held to be misconduct. He also submitted that without considering the evidence on record the learned Tribunal not only awarded the reinstatement of the workman into service with continuity of service but also awarded 50% of back wages, which is illegal. He also submitted that the workman was absent from duty on ﬁve occasions from December, 1988 to April, 1999 without applying any leave and without any certiﬁcate from the Doctor that he is suﬀering from sickness. In view of the above, the learned Tribunal is not justiﬁed in passing the impugned order. On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for the workman submitted that the learned Tribunal had considered the evidence on record and found that the order of removal passed by the authorities was erroneous. Therefore, the learned Tribunal was justiﬁed in granting relief sought for, by the workman. He also submitted that since the workman was not given an opportunity of making representation in the course of departmental enquiry i.e. domestic enquiry, therefore, the whole disciplinary proceedings have been vitiated. The learned Tribunal ought to have awarded with full back wages instead of 50% of back wages. Therefore, sought to award full back wages. He further submitted that in the evidence of MW-1 who categorically admitted that the workman had submitted sick certiﬁcate and as per (Leave) Regulation 12 (3) submission of a sick certiﬁcate tantamounts to an application for leave on medical certiﬁcate. Therefore, it is not mandatory on the part of the workman to make separate application for leave. Heard the learned counsel on either side and perused the material on record. What is to be seen in the instant case is that whether the impugned award suffers from any perversity? From a perusal of the record, it is not in dispute that the workman was removed from the service on the ground of unauthorized absence from his duties. The main grievance of the workman is that the learned Tribunal had rightly considered the evidence on record but ought to have awarded full back wages instead of 50% of back wages. The grievance of the Corporation is that the learned Tribunal committed an error in awarding reinstatement and particularly with 50% of back wages. From a perusal of the record it is obvious that the workman submitted medical certiﬁcate for the period from 15-03-1999 to 12-04-1999. M.W.-1 stated that the medical certiﬁcate was not valid without any leave application. In this regard, the learned counsel appearing for the workman referred Rule 12 (3) of the Regulations and from a perusal of the said Rule it is clear that submission of a sick certiﬁcate as prescribed in the Regulation tantamounts to an application for leave on medical certiﬁcate. In this connection, I am of the considered opinion that the learned Tribunal had rightly held that if really the Management got a doubt about the sickness of the workman, they would have informed the workman to attend before the medical board and obtain a certiﬁcate in proof of his sickness. Without doing so, his sick leave was split into ﬁve spells and the Management failed to explain the reasons why the sick leave was split. With regard to the contention of the learned counsel appearing for the workman that the workman is entitled to full back wages instead of 50% of back wages, I am of the considered view that it is not the case of the workman that domestic enquiry is not conducted but he challenged the validity of domestic enquiry. In this regard, the learned Tribunal held that the ﬁnding of the Management in removing the workman from service is not commensurate with the alleged misconduct. The very misconduct itself is not proved satisfactorily. In this connection, I am of the considered opinion that it cannot be said that misconduct of the workman is not at all proved but it is not proved satisfactorily. In that view of the matter, the learned Tribunal did not commit any error in awarding reinstatement with 50% of back wages. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and the submissions made by the learned counsel on either side, I do not see any reason to interfere with the impugned award and the same does not suﬀer from any perversity. Accordingly, the award passed by the learned Tribunal is confirmed. In the result, both the Writ Petitions ﬁled by the Corporation as well as the workman are dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. ___________________________ JUSTICE G. CHANDRAIAH Date: 10-07-2008 L SK