IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE EIGHTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION No. 12847 of 2006 Between: The Depot Manager, APSRTC., Kadiri ..... PETITIONER AND 1 K.Sreenivasulu S/o.Lakshmaiah, E-575292 Bommireddyalli (Post),Nallacheruvu (Mandal) Kadiri Taluk, C/o.Sri J.Narayana Swamy, Advocate D.No.8/361,Gulzarpet, Anantapur 2 The Chairman-cum-Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal cum-Labour court, Anantapur .....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 calling for the records relating to ID.No.160/2004 on the ﬁle of the Industrial Tribunal cum Labour court, Anantapur and quash the award dated 15.12.2005 by issuing appreciate writ order or Direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of Certiorari and to pass such other order or orders as the Hon`ble court may deem ﬁt and proper in the circumstances of the case. Counsel for the Petitioner: MRS. W.V.S.Rajeswari Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR LABOUR The Court made the following ORDER: The ﬁrst respondent was appointed as a Casual Driver on 05.05.1996 in the A.P.S.R.T.C. The driving licence produced by him was found to be not genuine. Therefore, the petitioner issued a show cause notice, dated 09.10.1996, requiring the ﬁrst respondent to explain as to why his services shall not be terminated. On a consideration of the explanation submitted by the ﬁrst respondent, the petitioner passed an order, dated 16.11.1996, removing the ﬁrst respondent from service. The appeal preferred by him before the Deputy Chief Traﬃc Manager was also rejected. Thereupon, he ﬁled I.D.No.160 of 2004 before the Labour Court, Anantapur under Section 2-A(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Through its award, dated 15.12.2005, the Labour Court had set aside the order of removal and directed the petitioner to reinstate the ﬁrst respondent with continuity of service and attendant beneﬁts, but without back wages. The award is challenged in this writ petition. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the first respondent. The Labour Court had set aside the order of termination, mostly on the ground that domestic enquiry was not conducted. It is not in dispute that the ﬁrst respondent was appointed as a Casual Driver and the question of conducting a domestic enquiry in his case does not arise. With the issuance of a show cause notice, the petitioner can be said to have complied with the requirement under law. Therefore, the award passed by the Labour Court cannot be sustained in law. Strictly speaking, the award is liable to be set aside or at the most, the matter needs to be remanded to the Labour Court for fresh consideration and disposal. However, it is brought to the notice of this Court that the A.P.S.R.T.C. itself issued a Circular, whereunder, the facility of appointing Drivers afresh is provided, in case a Driver, who is removed from service on the ground that the driving licence produced by him is not genuine, secures a fresh licence. The petitioner had reinstated the ﬁrst respondent on the basis of the award. Ends of justice would be met if the service of the ﬁrst respondent is counted from the date on which he ﬁled the fresh driving licence. Hence, the writ petition is partly allowed, modifying the award of the Labour Court to the eﬀect that the reinstatement of the ﬁrst respondent shall be subject to the condition that his services would be counted for all purposes, from the date on which he has produced a fresh driving licence. There shall be no order as to costs. __________________ L.NARASIMHA REDDY,J Dt:08.08.2008 kdl ..... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1.2CCs to 2.2CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WP{TRK}