THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM WRIT PETITION NO. 8684 OF 2003 DATED: 14-02-2008 Between: R. Joseph Moses, S/o. J. Yesudas … Petitioner And Visakhapatnam Urban Development Authority, Rep.by its Vice Chairman, Visakhapatnam District And two others … Respondents THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM WRIT PETITION NO. 8684 OF 2003 ORDER: The writ petition is wholly misconceived as it is improperly instituted. 2. The writ petitioner claims to be a Junior Assistant employed with Visakhapatnam Urban Development Authority. He was terminated from service by an order dated 23-11-1992. Assailing the same, he lodged a claim before the Industrial Tribunal-cum- Labour Court, Visakhapatnam under Sec.2-A(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947(hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’). He impleaded to the claim “the Vice-chairman, Board of Urban Development Authority, Visakhapatnam”. 3. Under the provisions of the Urban Areas Development Act, 1975, every Urban Development Authority constituted for a region is a juristic entity entitled to sue and liable tobe sued in the juristic name and represented by its Secretary. In total ignorance of this legislative prescription, the Visakhapatnam Urban Development Authority was not impleaded as a respondent to I.D.No.412 of 1995 and instead the Vice-chairman, who is but an employee of the authority and an unauthorized representative thereof had been impleaded as the sole respondent to the I.D. 4. By the award dated 25-11-1998, the Labour Court, Visakhapatnam set aside the order of removal against the petitioner and directed reinstatement to duty, but without backwages while giving him the benefit of continuity of service. From a perusal of the award, it is seen that the Labour Court found the order of removal to have been passed without due opportunity. The Labour Court accepted the management’s plea to consider the petitioner’s conduct and the validity of the order of removal on the basis of the evidence marshalled by the management before the Industrial Tribunal, as permissible under Sec.11 of the Act. It requires to be noticed that the petitioner was terminated from service on the ground of frequent abscondence from duty. 5. The petitioner-workman examined himself as W.W.1 and M.W.1 and M.W.2 were examined on behalf of the Management. Ex.W1 was marked on behalf of the workman, while Ex.M1 to M16 on behalf of the Management. The Labour Court analysed the evidence on record and held that the conduct of the petitioner constitutes disobedience to the commands of the Management not to avail every Saturday mechanically and thus to gross insubordination. However, the Labour Court found that the punishment of removal was disproportionate to the established misconduct and modified the penalty to one of reinstatement with continuity of service, but without backwages. 6. As the petitioner has not impleaded the sole respondent in the award as a respondent in this writ petition, but instead has impleaded three strangers to the proceedings as respondents and further as the Visakhapatnam Urban Development Authority is not a party to the award, this Court is disinclined to adjudicate upon this writ petition. 7. The writ petition fails and is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. _____________________ GODA RAGHURAM, J. Dt: 14-02-2008 Rns