THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. RAMULU W.P. No. 18411 of 2005 O R D E R: This writ petition is filed seeking a Certiorari calling for the records relating to the Award of the Labour Court in I.D. No. 25 of 2003 dated 28.3.2005, which was published in the gazette vide G.O.Rt.No.1111 dated 25.5.2005 and to set aside the same as arbitrary and illegal, to the extent of directing the respondents- authorities to treat that the petitioner has been compulsorily retired from service w.e.f. 2.5.1997. Petitioner is the workman. Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 are the management. It is the case of the petitioner that he was appointed as a driver into the service of APSRTC in the year 1991 and his services were regularized in the year 1993. While he was working at Mehdipatnam, on the allegation of unauthorized absence, he was removed from service by conducting an ex parte enquiry mechanically and he was removed from service. According to him, the enquiry officer failed to provide reasonable opportunity to him to defend the case and the appellate authority also confirmed the punishment imposed on him even without noticing the crucial aspect of affording reasonable opportunity, which is arbitrary and illegal. Heard both sides and perused the material available on record. It appears, petitioner was removed only on the ground that he was absent from duties from 16.12.1996 to 1.1.1997. It may be true that the petitioner did not file any appeal for more than five years and thereafter raised I.D. under Section 2-A(2) of the I.D. Act. However, the fact remains that for the earlier unauthorized absence the petitioner was already imposed with some punishment. Now, petitioner is aged 50 years and, on the ground that the petitioner was absent from duty from 16.12.1996 to 1.1.1997, he was removed from service and the Labour Court, taking note of all the circumstances, though held that the order of removal from service is disproportionate to that of the misconduct, directed the respondents-authorities to treat the said punishment as compulsory retirement from service and held that the petitioner is entitled for all the retrial benefits, as per rules. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the considered opinion that the punishment of treating the petitioner as compulsorily retired is disproportionate to that of the misconduct proved. The Labour Court ought to have seen that this is not a case of any misappropriation or cash and ticket irregularities. It is a case of absenteeism, which is a matter of record. Therefore, a lenient view could have been taken by the Labour Court and, instead of treating the petitioner compulsorily retired, reinstatement with continuity of service could have been ordered. Instead of doing so, the Labour Court has made a pedantic approach. Therefore, I am of the opinion that the Labour Court has not exercised the discretion vested in it under Section 11-A of the I.D. Act in passing the Award. In view of the above, the impugned Award passed by the Labour Court is liable to be set aside and it is accordingly set aside and the petitioner is directed to be reinstated with continuity of service but without any backwages and without any attendant benefits and the service of the petitioner between the period of removal and the reinstatement shall be counted only for the purpose of retrial benefits and not for any other benefits. Writ petition is accordingly allowed to the extent indicated above. No order as to costs. JUSTICE C.V. RAMULU. Date: 15-4-2010. MVB.