THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION No. 6688 OF 2008 Dated 28th March 2008 Between: The Depot Manager, APSRTC, Pulivendula Depot, Pulivendula, Kadapa District. …Petitioner and K. Bhasker & another …Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION No. 6688 OF 2008 O R D E R: The 1st respondent is a driver in the APSRTC. On the ground that he was unauthorisedly absent from 22.6.2000 to 5.7.2000, the petitioner issued a charge sheet, dated 9.7.2000, and the 1st respondent submitted his explanation on 17.7.2000. Domestic enquiry was conducted, and through order, dated 16.1.2001, the petitioner removed the 1st respondent from service. Departmental remedies of appeal and review were availed by the 1st respondent, unsuccessfully. Thereafter, he filed I.D.No.118 of 2003, under Section 2-A (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, before the Industrial Tribunal- cum-Labour Court, Anantapur. Through an award, dated 19.2.2007, the Labour Court partly allowed the I.D., and the order of removal was converted into the one of compulsory retirement. The petitioner challenges the same. Learned Standing Counsel for the petitioner submits that there is no provision for compulsory retirement of an employee, under the Service Regulations of the Corporation, and that the Labour Court is not justified in directing compulsory retirement of the 1st respondent. She contends that the charge against the 1st respondent was proved and the order of removal ought not to have been set aside. It is no doubt true that the 1st respondent was absent from duty, for about 10 to 12 days, without applying for leave. In response to the show-cause notice issued by the petitioner, he pleaded that he could not attend the duties, on account of sickness. Every unauthorized absence cannot lead to the severe punishment of removal. The order of compulsory retirement appears to have been passed, on account of exaggerated figures quoted by the petitioner, about the 1st respondent. It was pleaded that in the service of 15 years, the 1st respondent was absent unauthorisedly on 14 times. Cleverly enough, the period of absence was not mentioned. Serious objection was raised for reinstatement of the 1st respondent. Therefore, the Labour Court has directed that the 1st respondent be treated as compulsorily retired. In the normal course of things, the Labour Court would have directed reinstatement of the 1st respondent, but for the stiff resistance offered by the petitioner. Even if there is no specific regulation, providing for compulsory retirement, it cannot be said that the Labour Court committed any irregularity, in ordering for such a course. Further, if the petitioner feels that the compulsory retirement would cause hardship to it, it can very well avail the service of the 1st respondent, by reinstating him into service. That, however, is a matter, which the petitioner must ponder over. No irregularity can be said to have been committed, by the Labour Court. The writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. _________________ 28th March 2008 PAN