IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE FIRST DAY OF MAY TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT HON'BLE SRI ANIL R. DAVE, THE CHIEF JUSTICE And HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY WRIT APPEAL NO : 471 of 2008 (Writ Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the Order dated 14/02/2008 in WP NO : 8684 OF 2003 on the file of the High Court.) Between: R. Joseph Moses S/o. J.Yesudas Visakhapatnam Urban Development Authority, Visakhapatnam District. ..... APPELLANT AND 1 Visakhapatnam Urban Development Authority, Rep. by its Vice Chairman, Visakhapatnam District. 2 Secretary, Visakhapatnam Urban Development Authority, Visakhapatnam District. 3 State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary to Government, Labour, Employment & Factories Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad. .....RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Appellant : MR.GORTHIMURALIDHAR Counsel for the Respondents : GP FOR LABOUR The Court made the following : HON'BLE SRI ANIL R. DAVE, THE CHIEF JUSTICE And HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY WRIT APPEAL NO : 471 of 2008 JUDGMENT : (Per Hon’ble The Chief Justice Sri Anil R.Dave) In this appeal, order passed by the learned single judge in writ petition no.8684 of 2003, dated 14th February 2008 has been challenged. The service of the appellant-original petitioner was terminated on the ground of insubordination. He used to be absent on Saturdays and on some other days without sanctioned leave. The order of termination was challenged by the appellant by initiating proceedings before the Labour Court in I.D.No.412 of 1995. 2. The Labour Court, vide award dated 25.11.1998, set aside the termination proceedings and directed reinstatement of the appellant with continuity of service but without back wages. 3. The aforesaid award was challenged in the writ petition, but the writ petition was rejected on the technical ground of non- joinder of necessary party and on merits also. 4. Being aggrieved by the order of rejection, this appeal has been filed. 5. We have heard the learned advocate appearing for the appellant and have also gone through the impugned order and the award passed by the Labour Court. 6. Upon perusal of the award and the order passed by the learned single judge, it is crystal clear that the appellant was remaining absent without sanctioned leave. He himself had admitted before the Labour Court, “It is true I reiterated that I would avail leave every Saturday on religious grounds. I re- asserted that stand in Exs.M8 to M10 also”. 7. In view of the aforesaid admission and looking to the record, the Labour Court had rightly come to the conclusion that there was insubordination on the part of the appellant. The learned single judge was pleased to confirm the said finding. 8. Looking to the above facts, in our opinion, the Labour Court had shown some sympathy towards the appellant and set aside the order of termination and directed his reinstatement with continuity of service without back wages. 9. In our opinion, the award passed by the Labour Court was found just by the learned single judge and we also see no reason to interfere with the just orders passed by the learned single judge and the Labour Court, and, therefore, the appeal is dismissed. _________________ ANIL R. DAVE, CJ 1st May 2008 ______________________ R. SUBHASH REDDY, J ajr To 1 The Vice Chairman, Visakhapatnam Urban Development Authority, Visakhapatnam District. 2 Secretary, Visakhapatnam Urban Development Authority, Visakhapatnam District. 3 The Principal Secretary, Labour, Employment & Factories Department, State of Andhra Pradesh, Secretariat, Hyderabad.