HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH WRIT PETITION No.19826 of 2002 Dated 16.6.2011 Between: The Managing Director, A.P.Dairy Development Co-operative Federation Ltd., Lalapet, Hyderabad. …Petitioner. And: The Additional Industrial Tribunal-cum-Additional Labour Court, Hyderabad and another. …Respondents. HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH WRIT PETITION No.19826 of 2002 ORDER: This writ petition is filed seeking to call for records relating to G.O.Rt.No.615 dated 15.5.2002 in I.D.No.27 of 1999 on the file of the 1st respondent-Additional Industrial Tribunal-Cum-Additional Labour Court, Hyderabad. 2nd respondent herein is the workman. The case of the petitioner, in brief, is as follows: The workman joined in service on 1.5.1973 as casual labour and was appointed as time scale worker on 1.8.1974. Ever since his joining in service, the workman was in the habit of committing misconduct of unauthorized absence very frequently and on several occasions, the workman was imposed fine and let off with a warning. In spite of the same, he has not changed his attitude and continued to remain absent without prior permission of the authorities. The workman has remained absent from duty from 13.12.1995 to 22.3.1996 and from 30.6.1996 to 19.9.1996 and from 14.1.1997 to 17.11.1997. In this regard, the management issued two charge sheets dated 4.4.1996 and 31.7.1997 for the spells mentioned above. In response to the charge sheet, the workman failed to submit his explanation, instead he submitted joining report along with medical certificate on 18.11.1997. He was admitted to duty subject to finalization of the disciplinary proceedings. The petitioner appointed an enquiry officer for this purpose and the workman failed to appear before the Enquiry Officer as far as the first enquiry is concerned and the Enquiry Officer submitted a report holding that the workman was found guilty of misconduct. The workman participated in the enquiry so far as second charge sheet is concerned in which, he was found guilty of misconduct. On the enquiry report furnished by the Enquiry Officer, the disciplinary authority issued a show cause notice dated 17.1.1998 proposing the punishment of removal. The management after considering the explanation submitted by the workman and the facts of the case, passed removal order dated 16.5.1998. Aggrieved by the same, the workman filed I.D.No.27 of 1999 before the 1st respondent-Labour Court. The 1st respondent-Labour Court, without appreciating the evidence adduced by the parties, allowed the I.D. erroneously directing the petitioner to reinstate the 1st respondent into service which is contrary to law. The petitioner has no other alternative remedy except to approach this Court. Hence, this writ petition. On 21.10.2002, this Court while admitting the writ petition stayed all further proceedings except reinstatement and ordered notice. While so, on 14.2.2005, on a vacate petition, this Court made the following order in W.V.M.P.No.3032 of 2004. “Heard both sides. The petitioner, who is the management, seeks to assail the award of the Labour Court, where under the employee was sought to be reinstated with certain back wages and also with certain other punishments. This Court has granted interim stay on 21.10.2002 to the effect that there shall be stay of all further proceedings except reinstatement. However, it is now represented by the counsel appearing on either side that the employee- workman has already been reinstated. In view of the same, it would suffice in the interest of justice to direct the respondents to take into consideration of the petitioner’s emoluments based upon the scales, to which he is entitled to, under the law. Subject to the above, interim order dated 21.10.2002, stands modified.” Heard the learned counsel and perused the material available on record. The main grievance of the petitioner is that the Labour Court, without appreciating the evidence adduced by the parties, allowed the I.D. erroneously directing the petitioner to reinstate the workman into service which is contrary to law. Hence, the award passed by the Labour Court is illegal and improper and the same is liable to be set aside. Before the Labour Court, W.W.1 was examined on behalf of the workman and M.W.1 was examined on behalf of the respondent- management therein. On behalf of the workman, Exs.W.1 to W.3 were marked and on behalf of the respondent-workman, Exs.M.1 to M.7 were marked. As seen from the award and on a close scrutiny of the evidence with oral and documentary, it is the case of the workman that he has absented himself for the period from 30.6.1996 to 3.9.1996 and 14.1.1997 to 17.1.1997 without leave but there is a sufficient cause that he has been suffering from Lumbno. Therefore, the punishment imposed on the workman is shockingly disproportionate when compared with the gravity of the misconduct, because he has submitted two medical certificates for the above said period, as rightly observed by the Labour Court. Apart from that the removal of the workman from service by the respondent is unjustified. Therefore, the Labour Court is justified in observing that the punishment imposed on the workman is shockingly disproportionate when compared with the gravity of the misconduct in view of the two medical certificates submitted by the workman for the above said period. In that view of the matter, I do not find any illegality or irregularity in the order impugned warranting any interference by this Court and hence, this writ petition is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, this Writ Petition is dismissed. No costs. ________________________ Justice G.CHANDRAIAH Dated 16.6.2011. Dvs HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH WRIT PETITION No.19826 of 2002 Dated 16.6.2011