IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE TWENTY SECOND DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH WRIT PETITION NO : 21240 of 1999 Between: D.Ananthaiah, S/o. D.Ramappa, R/o. Muddulapuram ( Post ) & Village, Kadiri Mandalam, Ananthapur District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 Industrial Tribunal-Cum-Labour Court, rep. by its the Chairman, Ananthapur. 2 The Depot Manager, A.P.State Road Transport Corporation, Kadiri Depot, Kadiri Mandalam, Ananthapur 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 may be pleased to call for the records from the respondents and issue an appropriate Writ, Order or Direction, particularly in the nature of Writ of Certiorari and quash the award passed by the 1st respondent in I.D.No.188/89 dated 3-7-1990 insofar as it relates to denying of one annual increment with cumulative eﬀect and also reducing the rank by ﬁve places in the seniority list of Conductors as illegal, unjust, contrary to law and perverse and pass Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.A.K.JAYAPRAKASH RAO Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR LABOUR The Court made the following: ORDER: This writ petition has been filed seeking to issue a Writ of Certiorari and quash the award passed by the 1st respondent in I.D. No.188 of 1989 dated 03-07-1990 insofar as it relates to denying the back wages and inﬂicting the punishment of stoppage of the annual increment with cumulative eﬀect and also reducing the rank by ﬁve places in the seniority list of Conductors, as illegal, unjust, contrary to law and perverse. The case of the petitioner is that he joined the services of the 2nd respondent Corporation as a Conductor in the year 1978. Vide proceedings dated 31-03-1989 issued by the Depot Manager, Khadiri, the petitioner was removed from service on the ground of unauthorized absence. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner raised dispute in I.D. No.188 of 1989 on the ﬁle of the learned Chairman, Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Anantapur. After considering the case of the petitioner, the learned Tribunal passed an award dated 03- 07-1990 directing the respondent Corporation to reinstatement the petitioner into service with continuity of service but without back wages. The petitioner is not entitled to one increment with cumulative effect. The respondent Corporation is directed to reduce the rank of the petitioner by ﬁve places in the seniority list. The petitioner is entitled to wages from the date when he expresses his intention to resume duty by registered post or in person under acknowledgment after the expiry of 30 days from the date of publication of the award. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that it is not a case of unauthorized absence but the petitioner absent from duty due to ill health and in support of his illness he produced a medical certiﬁcate. Even after the same, the learned Tribunal committed an error in imposing the punishment and it ought to have allowed the said I.D. setting aside the removal order directing the respondent Corporation to reinstate the petitioner into service will all attendant benefits. On the other hand, the learned standing counsel appearing for the Corporation submits that pursuant to the award passed by the learned Tribunal, the petitioner was reinstated into service and after attaining the age of superannuation he retired from the service on 30-06-2003. It is also submitted that the petitioner also received all retiremental beneﬁts without any protest. In view of the same, the petitioner is not entitled to any relief as sought for in the present writ petition and the same is liable to be dismissed. Admittedly the petitioner was an employee of the respondent Corporation and he was removed from service on the ground of unauthorized absence. After considering the case of the petitioner, the learned Tribunal set aside the removal order holding that the charges framed against the workman is only a technical defect. The petitioner could not produce medical certiﬁcate from the Corporation clinic and that he had not reported before the medical attendant prescribed by the Management for which the petitioner should have been dealt with by a minor punishment envisaged under the APSRTC Employees (CC and A) Regulations, 1967. Further the respondent Corporation ignored all the lenient modes of punishments envisaged under Section 8 of the Regulations but resorted to maximum punishment of economic death of sentence on the petitioner. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and the submissions made by the learned counsel on either side, I am of the considered opinion that the learned Tribunal while exercising powers conferred on it set aside the order of removal and directed the Corporation to reinstate the petitioner into service with continuity of service but without back wages, disentitling the petitioner for one increment with cumulative eﬀect and reducing the rank of the petitioner by ﬁve places in the seniority list. As the petitioner was already retired from service on attaining the age of superannuation and he received his retirmental beneﬁts under without protest, I do not see any reason to interfere with the impugned order passed by the learned Tribunal and the writ petition is liable to be dismissed. In the result, accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. _________________________ JUSTICE G. CHANDRAIAH Date: 22-08-2008 LSK