THE HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G. ROHINI Writ Petition No. 2533 of 2010 Dated: 11.02.2010 Between: B.D.Raju, Rajahmundry, East Godavari District. … Petitioner And The A.P.S.R.T.C, rep., by its Managing Director, Musheerabad, Hyderabad and 3 others. … Respondents THE HON'BLE Ms. JUSTICE G.ROHINI Writ Petition No. 2533 of 2010 O R D E R : The petitioner herein was working as Driver on contract basis in the A.P. State Road Transport Corporation. His services were terminated by the 3rd respondent by proceedings dated 15.07.2008 on the ground of cash and ticket irregularities allegedly committed by him. Though the petitioner preferred an appeal, the same was dismissed by the 2nd respondent vide proceedings dated 16.01.2009. Thereafter, the petitioner preferred I.D.No.78 of 2009 under Section 2A (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short ‘the Act’) before the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Visakhapatnam. The labour Court, by award dated 18.12.2009, dismissed the I.D. holding that the petitioner was not a workman and therefore, he was not entitled to raise an industrial dispute under Section 2A (2) of the Act. Hence, the present writ petition seeking a declaration that the award passed by the labour Court in I.D.No.78 of 2009 as well as the order of termination dated 15.07.2008 as confirmed on appeal is arbitrary and illegal. I have heard the learned counsel for both the parties. It is primarily contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that since the allegations of cash and ticket irregularities cause stigma to the petitioner, his services cannot be terminated without holding the necessary enquiry. In support of the submissions, the learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon a decision of this Court in W.P.No.5998 of 2009 dated 23.03.2009 wherein this Court set aside an identical order under which the services of a contract worker were terminated. Having considered the entire material available on record and taking into consideration the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, I am satisfied that the petitioner herein is similarly situated and the respondent-Corporation ought not to have terminated the services of the petitioner without holding an enquiry into the allegations. As a matter of fact, a circular was also issued by the Corporation on 23.02.2009 prescribing the procedure to be followed by initiating disciplinary action against the employees engaged even on contract basis. In the circumstances, the labour Court is not justified in dismissing the I.D. merely on the ground that the petitioner was not a workman. Accordingly, the award dated 18.12.2009 as well as the order of termination dated 15.07.2008 as confirmed on appeal are hereby set aside and the writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondents to reinstate the petitioner into service. However, this shall not preclude the respondents to hold the necessary enquiry into the allegations following due process of law. No costs. _____________ G. ROHINI, J. Date: 11.02.2010 KLP