IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE SECOND DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 6624 of 2000 Between: V.S.Vara Prasad Rao, S/o.V.Ramakrishnaiah, A.P.S.R.T.C., Chirala Depot, R/o.Vittal Nagar, behind Railway Goods Shed, Chirala, Prakasam District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Guntur. 2 The Depot Manager, A.P.State Road Transport Corporation, Chirala, Prakasam 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 an appropriate writ, order or direction, more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Certiorari, call for the records from the first respondent herein i.e., the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Guntur in I.D.No.233 of 1998, dated:1.10.1999, Remand and quash the same as illegal, arbitrary and against the principles of natural justice; and to pass Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.P.GOPAL DAS Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR LABOUR The Court made the following : ORDER: The petitioner filed this writ petition challenging the award, dated 1.10.1999 passed in I.D.No.233 of 1998 by the Labour Court, Guntur. The petitioner was appointed as a conductor in Chirala Depot, of Andhra Pradesh Road Transport Corporation (APSRTC). While he was conducting the bus on 14.10.1999, on the bus bearing No.AZZ 5335 on the route Chirala to Pedaganjam, a check was exercised by the checking officials, who found certain cash and ticket irregularities committed by the petitioner. As a measure of penalty, disciplinary proceedings were issued and the petitioner was imposed the punishment of withholding of annual increment for a period of two years with cumulative effect besides treating the suspension period as not on duty. In view of imposing of penalty on the petitioner, APSRTC Employees Union, represented by the Assistant Secretary, Ongole has submitted a representation for conciliation before the Assistant Commissioner of Labour, Ongole. On failure of the conciliation, the Assistant Commissioner of Labour, Ongole submitted failure report to the Government and the Government referred the matter to the Labour Court, Guntur for adjudication of the dispute. The Labour Court by the impugned award without going into the merits of the claim of the petitioner, only on the ground that the claim statement is not filed and there is no representation on behalf of the Union, dismissed the reference as ex parte. Hence, the present writ petition challenging the award mainly on the ground that though the Assistant Secretary, APSRTC Employees Union, Ongole raised the dispute on behalf of the petitioner, without giving opportunity by issuing notice to the proper party the impugned award was passed. In the counter affidavit it is stated that the petitioner has failed to avail the opportunity to defend his case before the Labour Court, Guntur and there was no representation on behalf of the Employees Union, hence the matter was decided ex parte. It is evident from the letter R.C.No.B/1948/97 dated 5.02.1998 that the case of the petitioner was espoused by the Assistant Secretary, APSRTC Employees Union, Ongole. Hence the Tribunal ought to have issued notice to the said representative but not to the Assistant Secretary, APSRTC Employees Union, Nellore as mentioned in the award. As much as the specific allegation of the petitioner is not controverted, this Court is of the view that it is a fit case to give further opportunity to the petitioner by setting aside the ex parte award passed by the Tribunal. For the aforesaid reasons, the award under challenge dated 1.10.1999 passed by the Labour Court, Guntur in I.D.No.233 of 1998 is set aside and the matter is remitted to the Labour Court for fresh consideration and to decide on merits. The Labour Court is also directed to issue notice to the Assistant Secretary, APSRTC Employees Union, Ongole and shall take further proceedings in accordance with law. Subject to the above direction, the Writ Petition is allowed. _______________________ (R.SUBHASH REDDY, J.) 2nd March, 2009 Js.