IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE TWENTY THIRD DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE MS JUSTICE G.ROHINI WRIT PETITION No. 2299 OF 2010 Between: M.D.Prasad ..... PETITIONER AND The A.P.S.R.T.C., rep by its Managing Director, Musheerabad, Hyderabad and others .... RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioner: Counsel for the Respondents: The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE MS JUSTICE G.ROHINI WRIT PETITION No. 2299 OF 2010 O R D E R: This writ petition is filed seeking a declaration that the order dated 20.11.2008 passed by the 3rd respondent terminating the services of the petitioner as upheld by the Industrial Tribunal-cum- Labour Court, Visakhapatnam in I.D.No.75 of 2009 by award dated 18.12.2009 as arbitrary and illegal. It is primarily contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the termination of the petitioner without holding the necessary enquiry is arbitrary, illegal and in violation of the principles of natural justice. Though the fact that the petitioner was only working as a contract worker is not in dispute, the learned counsel for the petitioner, while relying upon a decision of this Court in W.P.No.5998 of 2009 dated 23.03.2009, contended that since the services are terminated making allegations of cash and ticket irregularities, which casts stigma to the petitioner, his services cannot be terminated without holding the necessary enquiry. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Standing counsel appearing for the Corporation, I find force in the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the action of the 3rd respondent in terminating the services of the petitioner without holding any enquiry is arbitrary and illegal. In the circumstances, the Labour Court is not justified in dismissing the I.D. Accordingly, the award dated 18.12.2009 as well as the order of termination dated 20.11.2008 are hereby set aside and the Writ Petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondents to reinstate the petitioner into service. However, this shall not preclude the respondents to institute fresh proceedings after holding the necessary enquiry into the allegations following due process of law. It is also made clear that since the petitioner was working only on contract basis, he shall not be entitled any back wages for the period from the date of termination i.e., 20.11.2008 till the date of reinstatement. No costs. ____________ G. ROHINI, J Date: 23.04.2010 Ivd