IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA WRIT PETITION NO : 7855 of 2002 Between: K. Chengal Raju S/o Rama Raju 57 years, R/o K.B.R.Puram Village, Puttur Mandal, Chittoor District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1. The Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal – cum – Labour Court, Ananthapur. 2. The Managing Director and Chief Executive M/s. Prudential Sugar Cooperation Ltd., Nindra Village, And Post, Chittor District. .....RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to issue a writ or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Certiorari, calling for the records pertaining to the award passed by the first respondent vide I.D.No.194 of 1998 dated 22.11.2001 and quash the same; and pass such other order or orders as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. Counsel for the Petitioner:. Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR LABOUR The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA WRIT PETITION NO : 7855 of 2002 ORDER: 1 The petitioner who worked as Steno-Typist and when he was removed from service he filed the present Writ Petition with the following prayer: “For the reasons stated in the accompanying affidavit, the petitioner herein prays that this Hon’ble Court will be pleased to issue a writ or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Certiorari, calling for the records pertaining to the award passed by the first respondent vide I.D.No.194 of 1998 dated 22.11.2001 and quash the same; and pass such other order or orders as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.” 2 The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner was appointed as steno-Typist on 10.02.1994 on a consolidated salary of Rs.1,200/- per month. However as he was not attending to duty regularly, and was absent so many a time without leave or prior permission, he was warned several times and the management taking a lenient view condoned the said absence. Even then as he did not mend his ways and was continuing the said misconduct i.e. unauthorized absence, the management intended to terminate his services and at that juncture, coming to know about the intention of the management, the petitioner voluntarily offered his resignation and the same was accepted. Thereafter, as a Steno-Typist was required, the management reappointed the petitioner in the said post and utilized his services for some time. Again as the petitioner was absent from duty without any prior permission, leave etc., the management taking a serious view of the matter, terminated him from out of the service with effect from 26.03.1998. Assailing the said action the petitioner raised a dispute before the first respondent and the same was numbered as I.D.No.194 of 1998. The Presiding Officer of the first respondent-Tribunal, having examined the entire documentary evidence marked on either side, came to the conclusion that the petitioner is a habitual unauthorized absentee and as such the said termination cannot be said to be contrary to the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act and accordingly dismissed the said case. As stated supra, assailing the said award, the petitioner preferred this Writ Petition. 3 Heard both sides. 4 From a perusal of the award impugned in this Writ Petition, this court is of the clear view that the authorities below are perfectly justified in terminating the services of the petitioner. It is not as though the petitioner was absent on one occasion. When he was appointed as Steno-Typist in the year 1992 he was actually asked to stay at the place where the sugar factory of the second respondent is situated. But however, he was residing at a different village called Narayanavaram. Further he was absent to duty from 26.04.1997 and he did not turn up to the duty till 04.06.1997. When the disciplinary proceedings were initiated and the services were about to be terminated, he voluntarily offered his resignation and the said resignation was accepted. Thereafter on a request made by the petitioner and because of the assurance given by him in his letter dated 10.09.1997 the 2nd respondent management appointed him afresh on temporary basis for a period of six months with effect from 01.10.1997. The said appointment is solely on sympathetic grounds, but it does not mean that the petitioner can claim rights under the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act. The question of issuing a notice and terminating the petitioner from the services as provided for under section 25 (H) of the Industrial Disputes Act has no place in this case. The said appointment is for a specific period and the petitioner also has not kept up the assurance given by him. The Presiding Officer of the first respondent has discussed all these aspects in deciding that the termination of the petitioner is justified. Accordingly I see no merits in this Writ Petition and hence the same is liable to be dismissed. 5 However, it appears, before the first respondent – Tribunal, the second respondent – Management came forward and agreed to pay an amount of Rs.5,000/- to the petitioner towards compensation and the First respondent Tribunal directed the second respondent management to pay an amount of Rs.10,000/-. The fact remains that the petitioner was appointed ion 10.02.1994 and was in service up to the date of his resignation i.e. 27.07.1997 i.e. he was in service for a period of 3 ½ years and thereafter again he was appointed on 16.09.1997 and worked for another six months. Thus he was in service of the second respondent management for total period of four years. In that view of the matter, this court directs the second respondent management to pay an amount of Rs.20,000/- to the petitioner towards compensation, within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 6 With the above direction, this Writ Petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. --------------------- 18.06.2009 kvsn