THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION No.12660 of 1997 Dated: 21.01.2008 Between: The A.P.S.R.T.C., rep., by the Depot Manager, APSRTC., Guntur-2 Depot, Guntur. ..... PETITIONER AND K.S.Narayana and another. .....RESPONDENTS THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION No.12660 of 1997 ORDER: This writ petition is filed aggrieved by the order of the Labour Court, Guntur, in M.P.No.42 of 1991, dated 17.01.1997. Facts, in brief, are that the first respondent was issued a charge memo for irregular attendance during the period from 01.07.1986 to 16.08.1987 which, according to the petitioner, constituted misconduct under Regulation 28(xxvii) of the A.P.S.R.T.C. Employees (Conduct) Regulations, 1963. He submitted his explanation thereto. Thereafter, an enquiry officer was appointed and a departmental enquiry is said to have been conducted. A show cause notice dated 02.06.1988 is also said to have been issued asking the first respondent to show cause as to why he should not be removed from service. The first respondent submitted his explanation on 28.06.1988. Without passing any final orders, the petitioner herein took the first respondent back to duty on 16.08.1989. However, he was denied wages for the period from 13.05.1988 to 16.08.1989. Aggrieved thereby, the first respondent filed an application under Section 33(c)(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, which was numbered as M.P.No.42 of 1999 before the Labour Court. Before the Labour Court, the first respondent-workman examined himself as P.W.1. On behalf of the petitioner herein, one Sri D.Seshagiri Rao was examined as R.W.1. The Labour Court noted that the first respondent had borrowed a loan from the petitioner-Corporation for purchasing a built-up house and, while sanctioning the loan, the petitioner-Corporation had imposed a condition that the first respondent should produce the original sale deed after purchase of the built-up house. The first respondent had contended that, after obtaining loan, he had purchased a built-up house and had obtained a sale deed. He contended that he did not produce the sale deed to the Corporation since he had to borrow some other amounts for getting the house repaired. According to the first respondent, he was bodily prevented from working in the Corporation for the reason that he did not produce the sale deed. He further contended that he was regular in attending the office, but he was not permitted to perform his duties. On the other hand, the petitioner-Corporation contended before the Labour Court that the first respondent had voluntarily abstained from duty for a period of fifteen months. The Labour Court held that, if the first respondent had really been absent from duty, nothing prevented the petitioner-Corporation from proceeding in accordance with law and removing the first respondent from service after conducting a regular departmental enquiry. The Labour Court further held that no memo or notice was issued to the first respondent during the entire period of fifteen months for his unauthorized absence and, under those circumstances, the explanation given by the first respondent that he was prevented from working by the Depot Manager simply because he did not produce the sale deed was acceptable and that the first respondent had indeed been prevented from discharging his duties. The Labour Court further held that the fault lay with the petitioner-Corporation in not permitting the first respondent to discharge his duties for a period of fifteen months and three days and that he was entitled for salary for the entire period. Sri C.Prakash Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for A.P.S.R.T.C., would vehemently contend that the Labour Court had erred in holding that not even a memo was issued. He would refer to the charge sheet issued to the first respondent for his irregular absence during the period from 01.07.1986 to 16.08.1987 and submit that an enquiry was held and a provisional show cause notice was issued. The period of absence for which the first respondent claimed wages before the Labour Court was from 13.05.1988 to 16.08.1989 and this period is not the period mentioned in the charge sheet referred to above. No evidence was placed before the Labour Court to show that the petitioner-Corporation had, in fact, taken any disciplinary action against the first respondent for the alleged period of unauthorized absence from duty from 13.05.1988 to 16.08.1989. The findings recorded by the Labour Court cannot be said to be perverse or as based on no evidence, necessitating interference in Certiorari proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The writ petition fails and is, accordingly, dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. ________________________ (Ramesh Ranganathan, J) 21st January 2008. sh