IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD MONDAY, THE FOURTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI ANIL R. DAVE, THE CHIEF JUSTICE and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY WRIT APPEAL NO : 779 of 2008 (Writ Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the Order dated 06/02/2008 in WP NO : 34065 OF 1998 on the file of the High Court.) Between: The Depot Manager, A.P.S.R.T.C., Kamareddy, Nizamabad District, Andhra Pradesh. ..... APPELLANT AND 1 Md.Yousuf, S/o. Shaik Habeeb, C/o. A.Rasheed, RTC Driver, H.NO.1-50,Phulong, Nizamabad. 2 The Labour Court-II, Hyderabad, A.P. .....RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Appellant:MR.KAMBHAM MADHAVA REDDY Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR LABOUR The Court made the following : JUDGMENT: (Per Anil R. Dave, CJ) The appellant, who is an employer, has challenged the validity of the order passed in W.P.No. 34065 of 1998, dated 6-2- 2008. Respondent No.1 was working as a driver. He proceeded on leave for two days but did not report upon completion of sanctioned leave, because during the said period he lost his father and, thereafter he became ill. He reported for duty after sixteen days. There was a delay in reporting for duty. The reasons were duly communicated to the appellant-employer, but the employer thought it proper to remove respondent No.1 from service after holding necessary departmental enquiry. In the circumstances, respondent No.1 had approached the Labour Court. The Labour Court passed an order of reinstatement with 25% of backwages. The said order was challenged in the writ petition by the appellant-employer. The writ petition has been rejected and, therefore, this appeal is filed. According to us, the appellant-employer had become very harsh at the ﬁrst instance. Upon looking to the facts it is clear that respondent No.1 had lost his father and was sick and had adduced necessary evidence to show that he had lost his father and he was sick. The said facts are not in dispute. In the circumstances, the appellant should not have become so harsh. In the circumstances, we feel that the Award of the Labour Court and the order of the learned Single Judge cannot be said to be unjust and illegal. The appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs. _______________________ ANIL R. DAVE, CJ 4th August, 2008. ________________________ R. SUBHASH REDDY, J GRR