THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. RAMULU WRIT PETITION No.21472 OF 1999 DATED: 05.02.2008 Between: A. Anjaneyulu .. Petitioner And The Industrial Tribunal-cum- Labour Court, Hyderabad, rep. by its Presiding Officer and another. .. Respondents THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. RAMULU WRIT PETITION No.21472 OF 1999 ORDER: This writ petition is filed challenging the award, dated 17.11.1997, passed in I.D.No.61 of 1994, on the file of the Labour Court-III, Hyderabad, insofar as denying all other benefits such as continuity of service etc. while ordering reinstatement of the petitioner afresh. Petitioner is the workman and 2nd respondent is the management. It appears, the petitioner was appointed as Conductor in the A.P. State Road Transport Corporation (for short ‘the Corporation’) in the year 1987 and was attached to Nalgonda Bus Depot. While that being so, he was issued with a charge sheet on 15.01.1993 for his unauthorized absence to duties from 27.11.1992 to 15.01.1993 i.e. the date of issuance of charge sheet and, thereafter, a detailed enquiry was conducted into the charges leveled against him. Ultimately, the disciplinary authority passed an order on 31.05.1993 removing the petitioner from service. Aggrieved thereby, he raised a dispute in I.D.No.61 of 1994, under Section 2-A (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short ‘the I.D. Act’), before the 1st respondent – Labour Court. The Labour Court, after detailed consideration of the matter, came to the conclusion that though the charges leveled against the petitioner were proved, the punishment of removal from service was harsh and disproportionate to that of the charges proved and, accordingly, passed the impugned award, dated 17.11.1997, directing the management to reinstate the petitioner into service as a fresh candidate within one month from the date of publication of the award. It was further made clear that the petitioner is not entitled for any attendant benefits, such as, continuity of service or any other benefits. Aggrieved by such denial of continuity of service and all other benefits, the petitioner filed this writ petition. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the Labour Court, having held that the punishment of removal from service is disproportionate to that of the misconduct proved, could not have denied all other benefits such as continuity of service, backwages, attendant benefits etc. Atleast, the Labour Court ought not to have denied continuity of service, keeping in view six long years of unblemished service rendered by the petitioner. Learned counsel for the respondent-management supported the award passed by the Labour Court and stated that, in fact, the Labour Court took a lenient view and ordered reinstatement afresh, while holding that the charges are proved. Hence, no interference into the impugned award is warranted by this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The charges leveled against the petitioner are that he unauthorizedly absented to duties for a period of about 50 days and that he failed to submit an authorized medical certificate within 48 hours of his absence from duty. According to the petitioner, though he explained the authorities that he fell sick and produced a medical certificate to that effect, the same was not accepted by the authorities and the order of removal was passed on 31.05.1993. I am of the opinion that the Labour Court, while holding that the punishment of removal from service is disproportionate to that of the misconduct proved, ought not to have denied continuity of service, while exercising its powers under Section 11-A of the I.D. Act, in a case of this nature, particularly, when the petitioner rendered six long years of clean service, without any bad remarks. Thus, the award passed by the Labour Court is liable to be modified as that of reinstatement of the petitioner with continuity of service. However, in the facts and circumstances, no interference can be made insofar as denial of backwages and other attendant benefits. For the above reasons, the impugned award, dated 17.11.1997, is modified as under: “In the result, the order of removal from service passed by the respondent-management is set aside and the respondent-management is directed to reinstate the petitioner into service with continuity of service, but without any backwages and other attendant benefits.” With the above modification, the writ petition is disposed of. No order as to costs. _________________ JUSTICE C.V. RAMULU 5th February, 2008. IBL