THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.PRAKASH RAO AND THE HONBLE SRI JUSTICE C.Y.SOMAYAJULU WRIT APPEAL NO.2284 OF 2005. DATED: 19-12-2005 Between Bongu Venkunaidu, son of Narasimhulu Aged about 53 yrs, Male, Hindu, r/o China Vantharam, Vantharam post, Balajipeta Mandal, Visakhapatnam ….Appellant And 1.Executive Engineer, I & CAD, Special Investigation Division, Srikakulam and another …Respondents JUDGMENT (Per Sri B.Prakash Rao, J) Heard both sides and at their request, the main appeal itself is taken up for disposal. The appellant herein is the employee of the 1st respondent herein, who initiated disciplinary proceedings against the appellant for his unauthorized absence for a period of two years and ultimately his services were terminated. Thereafter, after lapse of 13 years, the appellant invoked the provisions under Section 2-A (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act and the matter was referred to Labour Court. After holding an enquiry, the Labour Court passed an award in favour of the appellant with a direction to reinstate him with continuity of service, but without back wages. Challenging the same, the respondent herein filed the writ petition. The learned single Judge after taking into consideration all the aspects and especially the fact that the absence was for a continuous period of two years and the appellant approached the Labour Court after lapse of 13 years, has modified the order with a direction to reinstate the appellant into service afresh without continuity of service and back wages. Hence the appeal. Having considered the submissions made and on perusal of record, it is seen that absolutely there is no justification for the appellant herein to continue his absence for a period of two years and there is also no explanation forthcoming from the appellant for approaching the Labour Court after lapse of 13 years. Therefore, the appellant cannot seek any indulgence as such more so, in exercise of powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. However, the learned single Judge after going into all these aspects and taking into consideration the other circumstances exercised the discretion and we do not find any warrant to interfere with the order of the learned single Judge. Accordingly, the writ appeal is dismissed. No costs. ------------------------ B.PRAKASH RAO, J Dated: 19-12-2005. ---------------------------- C.Y.SOMAYAJULU, J Hsd