IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE TWENTY SECOND DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA WRIT PETITION NO : 25823 of 2003 Between: G. Rajamouli, S/o. Ramulu, R/o. Godavarikhani, Karimnagar District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 A.P.S.R.T.C., Rep. by its Region Manager, Karimnagar Region, Karimnagar. 2 Deputy Chief Traffic Manager, A.P.S.R.T.C., Karimnagar. 3 Depot Manager, A.P.S.R.T.C., Huzurabad, Karimnagar District. 4 Government of Andhra Pradesh, Labour, Employment, Training (Lab-I) Department, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Secretariat, Hyderabad. .....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 to issue an order direction or Writ particularly one in the nature of Writ of Certiorari or any other appropriate writ, called for the record in Lr.No. 842/Lab.I/A1/2002 dated 4.4.2002 quash the same and consequently direct the 4th Respondent to refer the matter to the Industrial Tribunal for adjudication and pass. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.G.VIDYASAGAR Counsel for the Respondent No.: SMT.P.RAJANI REDDY The Court made the following : ORDER : The petitioner filed this Writ Petition under Article 226 of Constitution of India seeking a writ of Certiorari to quash the orders dated 04.04.2002 in Lr.No.842/Lab.I/A1/2002 and consequently direct respondent No.4 to refer the matter to the Industrial Tribunal for adjudication. 2. The brief facts are that the petitioner was appointed as a conductor on 29.02.1984 and he was attached to Huzurabad Depot of respondent No.1 Corporation. According to the petitioner, he fell sick and could not attend the duties during the period from 23.04.1989 to 14.07.1989 and treating the same as unauthorized absence, a charge memo was served on him. Without conducting any enquiry and without issuing any show-cause notice, the Depot Manager i.e., Respondent No.3 herein passed an order withholding the annual increments for a period of Two years. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner preferred an appeal contending that the same is contrary to all canons of law, and also filed a petition to condone the delay, as the appeal was not filed in time. But, the appellate authority rejected the same on the ground of delay. As against the said order passed by the appellate authority, the petitioner approached this Court and filed the present writ petition. 3. Heard the learned counsel for both sides. 4. The initial order, withholding the annual increments for a period of two years, was passed on 01.11.1989. Against the said order, the petitioner preferred an appeal and filed on 24.03.1997. The delay in filing the appeal is abnormal. It is not known as to why the petitioner had not chosen to file an appeal immediately. In the normal circumstances, such an abnormal delay shall not be condoned. But, here is a case, according to the petitioner, before passing the order 01.11.1989 i.e., withholding the annual increments for a period of two years, no show cause notice was issued nor an enquiry was conducted. In that view of the matter, this Court takes a lenient view to condone the delay in preferring the appeal. 5. Therefore, the delay in preferring the appeal is hereby condoned and respondent No.4 is hereby directed to refer the matter to the Industrial Tribunal and the appellate authority is hereby directed to go into the merits of the appeal and decide the same as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of THREE MONTHS from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 6. Accordingly, this Writ Petition is allowed. _________________________ GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA, J Dated June 22, 2009 KSH