IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE FIFTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 16834 of 2008 Between: G. Ram Babu S/o. G. Seshagiri Rao A.P.S.R.T.C., Vidyadharapurm Depot, Vijayawada, Krishna District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Andhra Pradesh Road Transport Corporation rep. by its Managing Director, Musheerabad, Hyderabad-500020. 2 The Executive Director, APSRTC, Vijayawada Zone, Vijayawada, Krishna District. 3 The Regional Manager, APSRTC, Vijayawada Zone, Vijayawada, Krishna District. 4 The Depot Manager, APSRTC, Vidyadharapurm Depot, Vijayawada, Krishna District. .....RESPONDENTS 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 order or direction more particulars in the nature of Writ of Mandamus. (a) by declare the action of the respondent in issuing proceedings No.PA/10531/98-ED/VJA dated 08.02.1999 to the extent of treating the petitioner is reinstated as a fresh driver instead of reinstatement with continuity of service with all consequential beneﬁts as holding it as illegal, arbitrary and violative of Art 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India and also violate of Principle of Natural Justice and (b) consequently direct the respondents to treat that the petitioner is entitled for reinstatement as a driver with continuity of service with all other consequential beneﬁts in stead of treating as reinstated as a fresh driver and pass such other and further order or orders. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI Counsel for the Respondents: C.PRAKASH REDDY(SC FOR APSRTC) The Court made the following : ORDER: The petitioner is working as Driver in the Vidyadharapuram Depot of APSRTC. Through an order, dated 13.06.1995, the petitioner was removed from service, on the ground that he remained unauthorisedly absent for 11 days, between 01.11.1996 and 11.11.1996. The appeal preferred by him was dismissed, and thereafter, he approached the second respondent by way of review. The second respondent passed an order, dated 08.02.1999, setting aside the order of removal, but directing the appointment of the petitioner as Driver, afresh. The petitioner feels aggrieved by the denial of continuity of service and other benefits. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the respondents. The main ground urged on behalf of the petitioner is that the punishment imposed against him is totally disproportionate to the charge framed against him. It is urged that even if the absence of 11 days was not accounted for, it must not entail in denial of the beneﬁt of past service of about 12 years. The ground urged by the petitioner is, no doubt, tenable to certain extent. The fact, however, remains that the petitioner had an eﬀective alternative remedy by way of seeking reference to the Labour Court under Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short “the Act”). Therefore, the Writ Petition is disposed of, leaving it open to the petitioner to avail the remedy under Section 10 of the Act. There shall be no order as to costs. ______________________ Dt.05.08.2008 L.NARASIMHA REDDY, J GJ