HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B.PRAKASH RAO AND HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. BHAVANI PRASAD WRIT APPEAL No.88 of 2006 ORDER: (per Honourable Sri Justice B.Prakash Rao) This appeal is at the instance of the Guntur District Cooperative Central Bank Limited, Tenali, aggrieved against the order of the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.32104 of 1998, dated 04.07.2005, allowing at the instance of the first respondent, wherein he assailed the correctness of the award in I.D.No.49 of 1989, dated 21.08.1995, and sought for a direction to respondents therein to reinstate him with backwages and all other attendant benefits. Facts, in brief, are that the first respondent was appointed as a clerk in the Tenali Cooperative Land Mortgage Bank in the year 1968 and, subsequently, he was promoted as a supervisor in the year 1969. While so, he was transferred from Tenali to Duggirala branch in the year 1982. While he was working at Duggirala Branch, he applied for leave from 07.08.1985 to 19.08.1985; 11.08.1985 to 21.08.1985; and 22.08.1985 to 21.10.1985. Thereupon, the first respondent was issued proceedings dated 30.08.1985 by the Duggirala Cooperative Agricultural Development Bank to explain as to why he did not attend the duty and why action should not be initiated. The first respondent extended leave from 22.10.1985 to 05.12.1985 and again extended upto 31.12.1985. The first respondent was issued another notice dated 17.12.1985 calling for explanation to the proceedings dated 30.08.1985 of the Duggirala Cooperative Agricultural Development Bank. Thereafter, the Andhra Pradesh Cooperative Agricultural Development Bank Limited, Hyderabad issued a notice dated 19.05.1986 to show-cause why his services should not be forfeited from 12.08.1985 i.e. from the date of his absence as per Regulation 50 of the Regulations relating to the Service Conditions of the Employees of Centralised Service Cadre (for short ‘the Regulations’). By proceedings dated 19.11.1986, the first respondent was communicated of the resolution, dated 13.10.1986, forfeiting his right to service. Thereupon, the first respondent raised a dispute under Section 2-A(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short ‘the Act’) before the Labour Court, Guntur, in I.D.No.49 of 1989. The first respondent got himself examined as WW.1 and got marked Exs.W.1 to W.15. While no oral evidence was adduced on behalf of the appellant-bank, it got marked Exs.M.1 to M.3. After due consideration of the evidence available on record, the Labour Court held that forfeiture of the service of the first respondent was justified and dismissed the I.D. Against which, the first respondent filed the Writ Petition. The learned Single Judge, having taken into consideration the various submissions, categorically held that since neither a detailed enquiry was conducted into the gross misconduct nor the procedure contemplated under Section 25-F of the Act was followed and following the principles laid down in D.K.Yadav v. J.M.A. Industries Limited[1] and a decision of this Court in Mohd. Abdul Khadar v. The A.P. State Road Transport Corporation rep. By its General Manager, Musheerabad[2], allowed the Writ Petition, setting aside the impugned action of forfeiting the services of the first respondent and directed to reinstate with all consequential benefits such as back wages, continuity of service and attendant benefits. Hence the appeal by the appellant-Bank. Learned Counsel for the appellant-Bank submits that, having regard to the specific provision contained under Regulation 50 of the Regulations, the impugned action is perfectly justified and since the first respondent absented for such unexplained period, it cannot be said that there is either violation of Section 25-F of the Act or requiring an enquiry to be conducted into the allegations. Learned Counsel for the first respondent submits that in view of the settled principles, forfeiture or cessation of service would amount to a clear violation of Section 25-F of the Act and it merely requires an enquiry to be conducted. The only point that arises for consideration is whether, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the appellant-Bank was justified in forfeiting the services of the first respondent. Even though forfeiture would amount to cessation or automatic termination, the question of forfeiture of service would not arise since it squarely attracts Section 25-F of the Act. Admittedly, no enquiry was conducted into any of the allegations and, therefore, the impugned action cannot be sustained. We do not find any reason to come to a different conclusion than the one arrived at by the learned Single Judge. Hence, we do not find merits in the appeal. The Writ Appeal is, accordingly, dismissed confirming the order of the learned Single Judge directing reinstatement with all consequential benefits, continuity of service and other attendant benefits. However, the first respondent is entitled to the extent of 75% of backwages only. No order as to costs. B.PRAKASH RAO,J G. BHAVANI PRASAD,J Date:17.08.2010 usd [1] 1993(3) SCC 259 [2] 1983(2) ALT 301