IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD TUESDAY, THE NINETEENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA WRIT APPEAL NO : 1013 of 2007 (Writ Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the Order dated 27/04/2007 in WP NO : 1809 OF 2000 on the file of the High Court.) Between: 1 The Member Secretary APSEB, now A.P Transco Ltd. rep. by Chairman & M.D. Vidyut Soudha, Somajiguda, Hyderabad. (now presently Southern Power Distribution Co.AP Ltd), Tirupati, Rep by its Chairman & ManagingDirector Renigunta Road, Tirupati. 2 The Superintending Engineer (Operation) A.P.Transco Ltd., Vijayawada-II Vijayawada-II, Vijayawada, Krishna District. 3 Electricity Revenue Officer A.P.Transco Ltd., Presently Assistant Accounts Officer -ERO, Southern Power Distribution Co., AP Ltd. Nujiveedu, Krishna District. ..... APPELLANT(S) AND 1 The Presiding Officer Labour Court, Guntur 2 Sri G. Krishna Rao S/o Sri Sanyasi Rao D.No.24-12-37, Durgapuram, Opp: Potti Sriramulu Municipal Park, Vijayawada, Krishna Dist. .....RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Appellant:MR.G.VIDYASAGAR Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR LABOUR The Court made the following : JUDGMENT: (Per Anil R. Dave, CJ) The appellants are employer of respondent No.2-workman, whose service had been terminated by an order dated 6-1-1989. Being aggrieved by the order of termination, he had approached the Labour Court and by an award dated 21-6-1999 passed in I.D.No.56 of 1997, the order of termination has been set aside for the reason that the workman had not been paid subsistence allowance after he was placed under suspension. It was also noted by the Labour Court that the workman had been acquitted in a criminal case on the same charges and on the basis of the same evidence, the workman’s service had been terminated after holding the departmental enquiry. According to the Labour Court, it was not legal to terminate the service of the workman in the said circumstances. Being aggrieved by the award, the appellants had filed W.P.No.1809 of 2000. After hearing the learned Advocates, the said petition has been rejected by an order dated 27-4-2007. Being aggrieved by the order of rejection, the appellants-employer has approached this Court by way of this appeal. The learned Advocate appearing for the appellants has submitted that the impugned order passed by the learned single Judge is improper because, in fact, subsistence allowance was paid and the averment with regard to non-payment of subsistence allowance was made for the first time before the learned single Judge. He has also submitted that the Labour Court did not raise the issue with regard to the validity of the departmental proceedings initiated against the workman. He has also submitted that the learned single Judge has referred to cases of 18 workmen, which had not been referred to in the pleadings. We have heard the learned Advocates at length. We have noted the fact that the averment with regard to non- payment of subsistence allowance had been made before the Labour Court and the learned Advocate appearing for the employer could not satisfy the Labour Court about the fact that the subsistence allowance had been paid. In the circumstances, the Labour Court rightly came to the conclusion that subsistence allowance had not been paid to the workman. For not raising the issue with regard to validity of the departmental proceedings, the said argument had not been advanced before the learned single Judge. Be that as it may, we find that there is concurrent finding to the effect that the workman had been acquitted in the criminal case and on the same charges and on the same evidence his services had been terminated in departmental proceedings. This is definitely improper and illegal. With regard to the averments pertaining to 18 workmen who had been reinstated into service, it is true that there is no reference to those 18 workmen in the pleadings. But according to us, the said observation made by the learned single Judge would hardly affect merits of the case because we find other sound reasons for which the award of the Labour Court was confirmed in the writ petition. For the aforesaid reasons, we do not find any substance in the appeal and therefore the appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs. ANIL R. DAVE, CJ GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA, J 19th February, 2008 GRR To 1. 2.2 CD copies