THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO WRIT PETITION No. 5566 2011 O R D E R: This Writ Petition is preferred by a former driver of Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation (APSRTC) working at its Armoor Depot in Nizamabad District. He has been subjected to a disciplinary enquiry, based upon a complaint by one female conductor of the APSRTC. The said conductor was operating the bus bearing Registration No. AP 10Z 5305 at 13.30 hours on 06.05.2000. It was driven by another driver by name, Sri S.S. Anand. The writ petitioner seems to have boarded the said bus in an intoxicated condition and misbehaved with the said female conductor of the bus. He appears to have come by then under the influence of heavy intoxication due to consumption of an alcoholic beverage. Consequently, he could not bear a civilized behaviour and he let loose unprintable language against the said conductor. To compound the misbehaviour, he seems to have also assaulted one of the security guards, by name Sri G. Rabbani at about 08.30 hours in the evening on the same day. This incident took place after assaulting Sri S.S. Anand, who drove the bus when the ugly incident involving the writ petitioner and the female conductor took place in the afternoon. Domestic enquiry was conducted and based upon the evidence collected during the said enquiry, a finding was recorded that the writ petitioner was guilty of the misdemeanor alleged against him. The report of the domestic enquiry was made available to the writ petitioner to enable him to offer his comments, which he did on 06.11.2000. Since the explanation offered by the writ petitioner was not satisfactory, the Depot Manager did not consider it worthy to retain the writ petitioner in service and hence, passed orders on 21.12.2000, imposing on him the punishment of removal from service. That gave rise to the Industrial Dispute. On 02.02.2005, the writ petitioner himself has filed a memo before the Labour Court that he is not interested for an enquiry to be held by the Labour Court into the matter. Therefore, the Corporation was not called upon by the Labour Court to conduct an enquiry afresh before it. The petitioner has not produced any evidence before the Labour Court, except trying to find fault with the findings recorded by the domestic Tribunal. Hence, the documents, which the writ petitioner wanted to rely upon, were taken by the Labour Court and it has gone into the matter quite carefully. It found no difficulty in agreeing with the findings of the domestic Tribunal. The Labour court did not find the findings of the domestic Tribunal to be perverse. The view is a probable one, which is subscribed to by the domestic Tribunal. Hence, the allegation that under the influence of an alcoholic beverage, the writ petitioner has misbehaved with a female employee has been found to be rightly held as established. In such an event, the punishment imposed on the petitioner could not be described as excessive or harsh either. Hence, it has passed its Award on 30.06.2005, holding that the Industrial Dispute is devoid of merits and dismissed the I.D. The Award of the Labour Court, as is required in terms of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, has been published by the State Government, through their G.O.Rt.No. 1645, Labour, Employment and Training Department, dated 10.08.2005. Against the said Award, the present Writ Petition has been instituted by the writ petitioner only on 04.03.2011, ie. a cool 5 ½ years later on. There are no reasons assigned, which can be considered to be reasonable or fair, which prevented the writ petitioner from approaching this Court within a period of proximate closeness to the date on which the Award came to be published. 5 ½ years period is too long a period for one to invoke the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. It depicts lack of anxiety on the part of the writ petitioner to pursue the legitimate remedies available to him. It is also suggestive of a possible gainful employment elsewhere. Therefore, the inordinate delay in approaching this court in instituting the above Writ Petition is one factor, which comes in the way of the writ petitioner and disentitles him to seek extraordinary jurisdiction of this court to interfere with the findings recorded by the Labour Court. This apart, if employees working in a manpower intensive industry do not show appropriate and adequate respect for the rest of the employees, particularly those who belong to a different gender than their own, the very place of work becomes an intolerable place for all sections of the employees to work freely and in an amiable atmosphere. It will also not contribute to the productivity of the organization itself. The findings recorded by the domestic Tribunal in the instant case that the writ petitioner is guilty of misdemeanor towards a female employee of the Corporation, is good enough and a serious act of misdemeanor on his part, warranting imposition of a punishment of high order. However much the writ petitioner may have acted under the influence of an alcoholic beverage at that point of time, but nonetheless, such a conduct is incompatible for any industrial undertaking. I , therefore, do not see any justifiable reason or ground to admit this Writ Petition after this length of time. Hence, this Writ Petition is dismissed at the stage of admission itself. No costs. ---------------------------------- (NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO, J) 7th March 2011 ksld