THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V. RAMULU Writ Petition No. 21929 OF 2005 DT. 7.2.2011 Between: Kurri Mallikarjun … Petitioner And The Director Personnel Administration and Welfare, Singareni Collieries, Bhoopalpalli and another … Respondent Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri P Venkat Rao Counsel for respondent no.1: G P for Labour Counsel for respondentno.2: Mr Nandigam Krishnarao The Court made the following ORDER: THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V. RAMULU Writ Petition No. 21929 OF 2005 ORDER: This writ petition is directed against an award made in I.D. No. 12 of 2004 dated 2.5.2005 on the file of the Industrial Tribunal cum Labour Court, Hyderabad, wherein while dismissing an application filed under Section 2 (a) (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, an order was passed that since the petitioner had put in 8 years of services, shall be paid four months last drawn pay in lumpsum within a period of 30 days from the date of publication of the award, failing which petitioner is entitled for 6 % simple interest per annum. It appears, the petitioner was appointed as Coal Filler in the respondent organization on 1.9.1995, while that being so, he absented continuously for several years, as such he was issued with a charge sheet and after conducting an enquiry, the Enquiry Officer, submitted a report holding the petitioner guilty. Based on the Enquiry Officer’s report and on his own appreciation, the Disciplinary Authority imposed a punishment of removal from service. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner raised a dispute under Section 2 (a) (2) of I.D. Act, 1947 before the Industrial Tribunal cum Labour Court, Hyderabad. Before the Labour Court, the management/respondent had filed a detailed counter stating that the attendance of the petitioner was very bad and he worked for 101 days in the year, 1997, 96 days in the year 1998, 27 days in the year 1999, 32 days in the year 2000 and he had Nil muster rolls for the years 2001 and 2002. Further the petitioner did not attend the enquiry, hence, an ex-parte enquiry was conducted by making a publication in the local newspaper ‘Vartha’ on 28.6.2002. After considering the entire evidence placed before it, the Labour Court came to the conclusion that the enquiry conducted by the management was just and proper and held that though the petitioner sought for Voluntary Retirement, was unfortunate, since, he neither he is aged 50 years nor put in 10 years of service and has worked only for 8 years, hence, while confirming the dismissal order dated 7.3.2003, it was held that, he shall be paid four months last drawn pay in lumpsum within 30 days from the date of publication of the award. Heard both sides and perused the material available on record. I am of the considered opinion that petitioner neither completed 10 years of service nor is aged 50 years, therefore the question of granting the relief of voluntary retirement, does not arise. The Labour Court, after appreciating the entire evidence and record, held that the charges are proved and petitioner does not deserve any relief as prayed for, however, since the petitioner has put in 8 years of service, has rightly granted the last drawn salary for four months. The Labour Court has not committed any error calling for interference of this Court in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The writ petition is devoid of any merits and is liable to be dismissed and the same is hereby dismissed. No costs. ____________ C.V. RAMULU,J DATE: 7.2.2011 TVK THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V. RAMULU Writ Petition No. 21929 OF 2005 DT. 7.2.2011