THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN W.P. No.3745 of 1997 DATED: 13.02.2008 Between:- The Chief Accountant Officer, APSRTC, Musheerabad, Hyderabad. … PETITIONERS AND R.Mallaiah and another. …….. RESPONDENTS THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION No.3745 of 1997 O R D E R: Aggrieved by the order passed in M.P.No.275 of 1993 dated 19-02-1996 by the Labour Court-I, Hyderabad, the present writ petition is filed. Sri K.Madhav Reddy, learned standing counsel for the petitioner-Corporation, would submit, not without justification, that since no oral and documentary evidence was adduced on either side, and since the onus was on the first respondent-workman to establish his case, the Labour Court ought to have dismissed the M.P. and ought not to have directed the petitioner- Corporation to pay a sum of Rs.22,774/- to the first respondent. Learned standing counsel would further contend that since the proceedings under Section 33(c)(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, (for short ‘the Act’) is in the nature of execution proceedings, it is only if the first respondent had a pre-existing right could he have, by way of an application under Section 33(c)(2) of the Act, enforced such a right and the very fact that the petitioner- Corporation, in their counter affidavit, had specifically pleaded that the first respondent had availed excess leave would itself show that there was no leave to his credit and that he had no pre-existing right for making a claim for encashment of leave. The Labour Court, in its order in M.P.No.275 of 1993 dated 19-02-1996, observed that the first respondent had joined the service of the petitioner-Corporation on 17-05-1954 as a Kalasi, that he had worked till December, 1960 and again from December, 1960 till 31-03- 1990, on which date he retired from service as an attender on reaching the age of superannuation. The Labour Court further noted that the last drawn pay of the first respondent was Rs.1,625/- p.m. It also observed that the records relating to an employee would be under the custody of the Management, that it is the duty of the Management either to place the records before the Court or calculate the amount due to the first respondent as per the records maintained by it and decide what exactly was the amount due to him and, if there were no dues, to file the relevant records to substantiate the contention of the Corporation and that a mere statement, in the counter, that the first respondent had availed excess leave and that he was due an amount of Rs.2,242.18 ps. towards excess leave was not correct. The Labour Court further noted that though the petitioner-Corporation took as many as 10 adjournments, right from 10-11-1995 till 02-02-1996, to file a calculation memo, it did not choose to file the same and, therefore, an adverse inference had to be drawn in favour of the first respondent and against the petitioner-Corporation. The Labour Court awarded a sum of Rs.17,584/- towards encashment of 8 months leave at the rate of Rs.2,198/- p.m., an amount of Rs.2,198/- towards ex-gratia for the year 1989-90 and an amount of Rs.2,000/- towards staff mutual benefit fund, totaling to Rs.22,774/- to the first respondent. Since the very basis for filing the present writ petition is the contention of the petitioner- Corporation that the first respondent-workman had availed excess leave, I considered it appropriate to give an opportunity to the petitioner-Corporation atleast to produce details of the leave particulars of the first respondent-workman before this Court and at the request of the learned standing counsel, adjourned the matter from 05-02-2008 till date. Today, the learned standing counsel for the petitioner-Corporation would submit that the Management had not been successful in their attempts to secure the leave records of the first respondent-workman. The first respondent is said to be 78 years old. It is well settled that the jurisdiction which this Court exercises, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, is discretionary, that discretion is exercised only in larger public interest and that this Court would not make a microscopic examination of the order of the Labour Court to cull out any technical defects therein. Since the petitioner-Corporation, despite repeated adjournments before the Labour Court and despite being granted an opportunity even before this Court, has failed to produce the leave records of the first respondent-workman to substantiate their plea that he had availed excess leave, I see no reason to exercise discretion and interfere with the order of the Labour Court. The Writ Petition fails and is, accordingly, dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. ____________ 13-02-2008 usd