HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE B.PRAKASH RAO AND HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT PETITION No.17843 of 2001 and WRIT APPEAL No.1550 of 2002 COMMON JUDGMENT: (Per Hon’ble Mr.Justice B.Prakash Rao) Since these two matters arise out of common proceedings, they are being taken up together for disposal. In the writ appeal the appellant is the petitioner whereas in the writ petition the petitioner is the Management viz., Cooperative Sugar Factory Limited. Brief facts necessary for disposal of these cases are that the employee concerned who has been working as Accounts Clerk was proceeded against by way of disciplinary proceedings having regard to a charge that he has been continuously absent for a long length of time. Due to his unauthorized absence, after giving show cause notice and conducting enquiry, the management has passed the orders of removal from service. Ultimately, the same has been challenged by raising a dispute under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for brevity ‘the Act.’) which has been taken as I.D.No.199 of 1997. The Labour Court, after holding an enquiry and providing an opportunity to both sides, passed an order that the employee is entitled for fresh appointment. Challenging the same, the said employee filed a writ petition seeking for reinstatement by setting aside the orders of removal and also continue him in service whereas the management assails the said order on the ground that having regard to the nature of allegations leveled the employee is not entitled to such fresh appointment. When the matter came up before the learned Single Judge in the writ petition filed by the employee, the same was dismissed in view of the fact that the finding of facts cannot be interfered and further the order of providing for fresh appointment is by taking a sympathetic view, and therefore, it does not warrant any interference. Hence, the appeal and connected writ petition. Having heard the learned counsel and on perusal of the material on record, it is seen that the employee admittedly is continuously absent for a long period which has not been properly explained nor explained in the proceedings before the Labour Court. No doubt, such findings of facts based on appreciation of evidence could not come under the purview of jurisdiction of this Court in exercise of powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Accepting such a situation, the question would arise as to whether the employee is entitled to any indulgence. The Labour Court after taking into consideration the employee’s services directed for fresh appointment. It is submitted on behalf of the management that, pending these proceedings, as per the orders of this Court there is compliance of Sec.17-B of the Act and the employee is being paid the salary regularly. Be that as it may, this Court would not go into the findings of fact of continuous absence without being any justifiable ground. We do not find any justification to interfere in the proceedings nor there is any warrant for setting aside both the proceedings as such. Learned counsel for the appellant appearing on behalf of the management submits that in view of the compliance of Section 17-B of the Act and especially when the employee is going to retire in one or two months, the same would be continued. Recording the same, both the writ petition and the writ appeal are dismissed holding the orders of fresh appointment and that the employee is not entitled to place in the same position except for entitlement to the salary in terms of Sec.17-B of the Act. No order as to costs. _________________ B.PRAKASH RAO, J __________________ Date: 08-09-2009 SANJAY KUMAR, J SKM