IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU WRIT PETITION NO : 26846 of 2006 Between: The Depot Manager, APSRTC, Hyderabad. II Depot, Hyderabad. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 Md. Fayazuddin, Habeeb, S/o.Md. Azeemuddin, C/o.S.A.K. Mynuddin, TRT-68, RTC X roads, Jawaharnagar, Mushirabd, Hyderabad. 2 the Industrial Tribunal-II, Hyderabad, rep. by its Presiding Officer. .....RESPONDENT(S) 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 appropirate Writ, order or direction especially are in thenatureof a writ of Certiorari calling for the records relating to theimpugned order and award dt. 27.7.2005 made in I.D.no.110/2004, published on 5.9.2005 in GO.Rt.No.1852, Industrial Tribunal-II, Hyderabd, directing the petitioner to pay the 1st respondent a lumpsum amount of Rs. 75,000/- in lieu of reinstatement; and quash the same as being bad, illegal, without jurisdiction and invalid, andpass. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.KAMBHAM MADHAVA REDDY Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR LABOUR The Court made the following : ORDER: This Writ Petition is directed against an award made by the learned Industrial Tribunal-II, Hyderabad in I.D.No. 110/2004 dated 27.7.2005 wherein while ﬁnding the removal order passed by the respondents as arbitrary and illegal, granted a compensation of Rs. 75,000/- in lieu of reinstatement since the respondent-workman approached the Tribunal with a delay of 3 ½ years. The petitioner is the Management and the respondent No. 1 is the workman. Respondent No. 1 was removed from service on 29.6.1998 after conducting a detailed enquiry into the alleged unauthorized absence. Aggrieved thereby, the ﬁrst respondent raised a dispute under Section 2 A (2) of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short ‘the Act’) before the Industrial Tribunal, Hyderabad. It was the case of the respondent that though the absenteeism was from 21.11.1996 to 7.12.1996, the subsequent absenteeism was taken into consideration without there being any charge and evidence to that eﬀect and on that basis a removal order was passed on 29.6.1998 and the same is arbitrary and illegal. The labour court found that the enquiry conducted by the management was not valid since for the purpose of proving the subsequent conduct no charge was framed and no evidence was let in. On behalf of the respondent-workman, the respondent was examined himself as WW-1 and marked documents Exs. W- 1 and W-2. On behalf of the petitioner-management MW-1 was examined and documents Exs. M1 to M-18 were marked. After a detailed consideration of the entire material placed before it, the labour court found that the removal order passed by the petitioner was arbitrary and illegal and set aside the same. However, while considering the relief to be granted it felt that there was delay of 3 ½ years in moving the labour court and ﬁling the petition under Section 2A(2) of the Act and therefore, instead of ordering reinstatement of the respondent into service directed the petitioner-Management to pay lump-sum amount of Rs. 75,000/- to the workman in lieu of relief claimed by him. Aggrieved thereby, the ﬁrst respondent earlier ﬁled Writ Petition No. 4831 of 2006 and the same was dismissed by this Court on 26.10.2006. The learned counsel for petitioner strenuously contended that the ﬁrst respondent absented from duties unauthorisedly and therefore, the award passed by the labour court is contrary to the evidence on record and therefore, the award passed by the labour court is liable to be set aside, whereas, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent workman strenuously contended that the labour court on appreciation of the entire material placed before it has rightly come to the conclusion that the order of removal passed by the management is arbitrary and illegal and therefore, set aside the same and instead of further granting all other reliefs like reinstatement and continuity of service with full backwages in view of some delay granted a compensation of Rs. 75,000/- in lieu thereof. Therefore, such a reasoned order passed by the labour court cannot be interfered with by this court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. I have given my earnest consideration to the respective submissions made by the learned counsel on either side and perused the impugned order and material made available on record. The writ petition ﬁled by the workman being W.P.No. 4831 of 2006 was already dismissed by this court wherein the workman claimed further relief of reinstatement and continuity of service with full backwages. Now it is the turn of the Management to say that the award passed by the labour court was arbitrary and illegal and therefore, the same is liable to be set aside. In fact the Management must thank its stars. The labour court instead of granting all the reliefs claimed by the respondent workman cured the defect in the enquiry conducted by the petitioners by invalidating the enquiry and giving opportunity to the management to lead evidence even for the subsequent absenteeism, which was not enquired into by the enquiry oﬃcer or before passing the removal order by the petitioner. The labour court, however, considering the delay in approaching it has denied the reinstatement with continuity of service and backwages and directed the petitioner- management to pay a compensation of Rs. 75,000/- in lieu of reliefs claimed by the respondent. Therefore, I am of the opinion that the award passed by the labour court cannot be said to be arbitrary or illegal. The order passed is a reasoned one and in fact, it is to the detriment of the workman, and not to the management. However, this court cannot go in to the aspects whether the respondent-workman is entitled for any other relief etc., in view of dismissal of W.P.NO. 4831 of 2006 filed by him. Under those circumstances, I am of the opinion that the Writ Petition is devoid of merits and is liable to be dismissed and accordingly, dismissed. No order as to costs. C.V. RAMULU,J Dt. 24.10.2008 KA ..... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1. The Industrial Tribunal-II, Hyderabad, rep. by its Presiding Officer. 2. 2CCs to G.P for Labour, High Court of A.P Buildings, Hyderabad (OUT) 3. 2CD copies