THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO.2663 OF 2008 DATED 9TH DECEMBER, 2010 BETWEEN M.Malla Reddy … Petitioner And The Regional Manager, APSRTC, Nalgonda. And Others. … Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO.2663 OF 2008 ORDER: By Award dated 17.04.2007, the Labour Court-III, Hyderabad, dismissed I.D.No.129 of 2005 (wrongly mentioned as I.D.No.129 of 2006). The foundation for the said dismissal was the alleged admission of guilt of the petitioner by his counsel in respect of the charges levelled against him. Thereafter, the petitioner filed a petition in I.A.No.122 of 2007 in I.D.No.129 of 2005 seeking review of the said Award dated 17.04.2007 on the ground that his counsel had never admitted his guilt before the Labour Court and that the Labour Court had rendered the Award without considering the arguments on merits advanced by the counsel. The said review petition was dismissed by order dated 03.10.2007. Aggrieved by the aforestated orders, the petitioner is before this Court. The consequence of the Award under challenge is that the removal of the petitioner from the service of the Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation (APSRTC) is upheld. The petitioner, being a Driver in the APSRTC, was subjected to disciplinary proceedings in connection with his alleged consumption of alcohol while performing duty on 06.05.2004. After enquiry into the matter, the petitioner was removed from service under proceeding dated 02.12.2004. His appeal and review having met with failure, he approached the Labour Court by way of the subject I.D. In view of the aforestated circumstances, which clearly demonstrate that the petitioner was seriously disputing his removal from service on the basis of the charges held proved against him, it is difficult to believe that he would have instructed his counsel to admit his guilt before the Labour Court and pray for mercy. The finding to this effect recorded by the Labour Court at para-V of the Award dated 17.04.2007 is prima facie opposed to the admitted facts of the case. In spite of the petitioner seeking review of the Award passed on the basis of this so-called admission of guilt, the Labour Court was not inclined to accept the same and dismissed his review petition. The reasoning of the Labour Court was that the counsel for the petitioner had not argued the matter on merits as was evident from the notebook of the Presiding Officer. Be that as it may, the fact remains that the dispute as to the petitioner’s removal from service was not adjudicated on merits. The communication gap between the Court and the counsel cannot be a ground to deny the petitioner his valuable right of having the matter decided on merits. All the more so, when it involved his livelihood. The Labour Court therefore ought not to have rejected the review petition and should have reopened the case and considered the same on merits. The Award dated 17.04.2007 in I.D.No.129 of 2005 and the order dated 03.10.2007 in I.A.No.122 of 2007 in I.D.No.129 of 2005 are accordingly set aside. The matter is remitted to the Labour Court-III, Hyderabad, for consideration of the dispute on merits. As the matter has been kept pending for a sufficiently long time, the Labour Court is directed to give priority to I.D.No.129 of 2005 and dispose of the same in accordance with law within six (6) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The Writ Petition is allowed. No order as to costs. ____________________ SANJAY KUMAR, J. 9TH DECEMBER, 2010. Note: Registry is directed to transmit the L.C. Record in I.D.No.129 of 2005 forthwith. B/O VGSR/PGS