THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A.GOPAL REDDY W.P.No.6488 of 2000 Date of Order: 25-11-2010 Between: 1.The Director of Sericulture, Govt. Of A.P., Hyderabad and others. ..Petitioners and 1. Smt. Mehboobi and another ..Respondents The Court made the following Order: THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A.GOPAL REDDY W.P.No.6488 of 2000 Oral order: Heard the learned Government Pleader for Agriculture for the petitioners, Mr.S.Ashok Anand Kumar for the 1st respondent/workwoman and learned Government Pleader for Labour for the 2nd respondent. In this writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution, the petitioners obtained a Rule from this Court calling upon the respondents to show cause why a writ in the nature of Certiorari shall not be issued after calling for the records in I.D.No.94 of 1996, dated 17-11-1999 on the file of Labour Court-II, Hyderabad and to quash the same. The first respondent/workwoman raised an industrial dispute before the Labour Court—II, Hyderabad –2nd respondent herein for setting aside the termination order dated 30-10-1994 passed by the Commissioner, Sericulture, Government of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad and to reinstate her into service with continuity of service and back wages. It is not in dispute that the 1st respondent/workwoman is a daily wage worker in Government Silk Reeling Unit at Sangareddy and converted into full time contingent worker on the wage of Rs.740/- per month with allowances as per G.O.Ms.No.438 Food & Agriculture Department, dated 16-07-1990. Due to closure of the Unit at Sangareddy, the 1st respondent/workwoman and three others were shifted to Medak by order dated 30-06-1991 where the first respondent/workwoman reported to duty on 02-07-1991 without any hesitation or protest. Since the 1st respondent/workwoman created problems to other workers at Medak and absconded from duty from 22- 07-1992 onwards, she was transferred from Medak to Siddipet on administrative grounds. Therefore, she filed O.A.No.6500 of 1992 against the transfer order before the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal. The Tribunal by order dated 08-10-1993 directed the respondents therein to dispose of the matter on merits. After considering the representation made by the 1st respondent/workwoman dated 20-10-1993 a show cause notice was issued by the 1st petitioner herein on 12-04-1994 to which she submitted her explanation on 23-04-1994. Considering the explanation so submitted her services were terminated. Hence, she raised an industrial dispute before the Labour Court in I.D.No.94 of 1996. The Assistant Director of Sericulture—2nd petitioner herein, who examined as M.W.1, admitted that the services of the 1st respondent/workwoman has been regularised with effect from 01-03- 1990 which is not disputed. If that be the case, the Commissioner of Sericulture should have issued a charge sheet to the workwoman calling upon for disciplinary action for her absconding to duty and only if explanation offered by her is not satisfactory for the proved charge her services can be terminated. The Commissioner has not followed the principles of natural justice while passing the termination order; therefore, the impugned order is liable to be side and accordingly set aside. Since the 1st respondent/workwoman disobeyed the transfer order and harassed the co-worker, which is evident and resulted in her transfer to Siddipet where she remained absent, she is not entitled to claim back wages and directed the authorities to reinstate the 1st respondent/workwoman into service without back wages but with continuity of service. Questioning the same present writ petition has been filed. Once the evidence let in by M.W.1 discloses that the services of the workwoman have been regularised with effect from 01-03-1990, even for unauthorised absence, necessary charge has to be framed calling upon the explanation of the workwoman and if the explanation offered by the workwoman is not satisfactory, necessary enquiry has to be conducted to prove the charge and only on such proved misconduct her services can be terminated. Since the said procedure has not been followed by the Commissioner of Sericulture and straightaway issued the show cause notice, proposing punishment of termination, which is contrary to service rules. In view of the same, the impugned award passed by the Labour Court-II, Hyderabad/2nd respondent herein do not warrant any interference. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. _________________ A.GOPAL REDDY, J. 25-11-2010 Murthy