IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE SECOND DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 6638 of 2000 Between: S.L. Narayana, S/o. Tatayya, R.53961, Resident of Macherla, Guntur District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Prasiding Officer, Labour Court, Guntur. 2 The Divisional Manager, A.P.State Road Transport Corporation, Narasaraopet Division, Narasaraopet, Guntur District. .....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 issue an appropriate writ, order or direction, more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Certiorari, call for the records in I.D.No.107 of 1995, dated 20- 11-1997, on the file of the Labour Court, Guntur, published in G.O.Rt. No. 293, dated 24-1-1998 by setting aside the impugned order and quash the same as illegal, improper and against the principles of natural justice; and to pass such other order or orders as this Honourable Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.P.GOPAL DAS Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR LABOUR The Court made the following : ORDER: There is no representation on behalf of the petitioner. I have gone through the pleadings on record and the award passed by the Labour Court. In this writ petition, the petitioner challenges the award, dated 20.11.1997 passed by the Labour Court, Guntur in I.D.No.107 of 1995. By the aforesaid award, the Labour Court set aside the order of removal and directed the second respondent to reinstate the petitioner into service with continuity of service but without back-wages. Initially, the petitioner was appointed in the Andhra Pradesh Road Transport Corporation (APSRTC) Narasaraopet depot as office boy on 3.07.1975. Later on he was promoted as Record Tracer on 1.11.1978 and has worked at various stations. When the petitioner was working at Vinukonda, enquiry proceedings were initiated against him on the ground that he was absent from the duty unauthorizedly from 25.08.1992 onwards. In the disciplinary proceedings charges were framed against the petitioner, which read as under. 1) For having absented for your duties unauthorisedly from 25.08.1992 to till date without any sanctioned leave which constitutes misconduct under Regulation 20 (xxvii) of APSRTC Employees (Conduct) Regulation 1965. 2) For having not filed the legitimate reasons of your absence within 48 hours as required in terms of clause 11 of the sub-clause (2) of Leave Regulations, 1965 which constitutes misconduct under Regulation 28 of Clause (xxxii) of Conduct Regulations 1963. 3) For having disobeyed the instructions of DM/VNK issued vide Lr.No.R2/145(5)/92- VNK, dated 11.09.1992 which was sent to your residential address given by yourself and failed to receive the same and also to report at D.E.’s Office VNK, which constituted misconduct under Regulation 28 (viii) of APSRTC Employees (Conduct) Regulations 1963. Though the petitioner submitted explanation denying the charges, the respondents have conducted regular enquiry by appointing an enquiry officer, who after recording necessary evidence, submitted enquiry report to the disciplinary authority holding that the charges framed against the petitioner are proved. Based on the findings recorded by the enquiry officer, the disciplinary authority passed orders removing the petitioner from service with effect from 30.10.1993. The petitioner questioned the said order of removal by filing an application under Section 2- A(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short ‘the Act’). The Tribunal while recording a finding that the petitioner did not make out any case by explaining satisfactorily for his absence for the period beyond 25.08.1992 up to January 1994, but by further examining the quantum of punishment having regard to the gravity of charges, exercised the power vested under Section 11- A of the Act and ordered reinstatement of the petitioner into service with continuity of service but without back-wages. In this writ petition, it is the case of the petitioner that in spite of the fact that he has furnished the change of address of his residence, without giving notice to the changed address the enquiry officer conducted enquiry and recorded findings against him. It is also the case of the petitioner that as much as the order of removal is illegal he is entitled for award of back-wages. A counter affidavit is filed by the Law Officer of the first respondent-Corporation. In the counter affidavit it is stated that though notices were sent by the enquiry officer as well as the disciplinary authority to the address furnished by the petitioner by Registered Post with Acknowledgement Due, but the same were undelivered. As much as the petitioner did not avail the opportunity given by the enquiry officer as well as the disciplinary authority, based on the evidence available on record, findings were recorded by the enquiry officer and based on which the disciplinary authority passed order of removal of the petitioner. Primarily it is the case of the petitioner that though he applied for leave for the period 27.07.1992 to 12.08.1992 on the ground that he was suffering from fever, he sought for extension of leave from 13.08.1992 to 3.09.1992 through a telegram and the same was further extended up to 24.08.1992. Thereafter, there was no extension at all. The petitioner was absent unauthorizedly for a very longtime and he continued to be absent up to January 1994. Merely because he has sent telegram for extension of leave that itself is not sufficient to explain the abnormal period for which he was absent unauthorisedly i.e. from 25.08.1992 up to January 1994. Although it was his case that he was not given an opportunity, but it is categorically stated in the counter affidavit that the enquiry officer as well as the disciplinary authority issued notices to the address furnished by the petitioner and the same were in accordance with Regulation 35(a) of APSRTC Employees (Classification, Control and Appeal) Regulations 1967, framed under Section 45(1) of the APSRTC Act 1950. Further, though the petitioner pleaded that he has given new address in the leave extension applications, he did not place any material to show such change of address at any point of time. In view of the same, the Tribunal correctly found that in the absence of any material to show that he has informed the employer with regard to the change of address, the respondents have sent the notices by Registered Post with Acknowledgement Due at the address, which is available on record and proceeded with the enquiry. In that view of the matter, it cannot be said that the petitioner was deprived of any opportunity either at the stage of enquiry or thereafter. This writ petition is filed mainly questioning the award of the Tribunal to the extent of not granting back-wages. But the Tribunal, on appreciation of evidence, has found that there was no sanction of leave for the period beyond 24.08.1992 and the petitioner was absent for a long time unauthorizedly from 25.08.1992 to January 1994. In spite of such a lapse on the part of the workman, the Tribunal itself has taken a lenient view so as to give an opportunity to the petitioner to serve the Corporation and accordingly ordered for reinstatement with continuity of service, but without back-wages. Having regard to the proven misconduct against the petitioner, it is not a fit case for award of back-wages. As held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of J.K. Synthetics Ltd., V.K.P. Agarwal & Anr.[1], granting of back- wages in a case like this, amounts to granting of premium on a misconduct of the workman and punishing the employer. In view of the ratio decided by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the aforesaid judgment, I am of the view that it is not a fit case to grant any further relief to the petitioner. For the aforesaid reasons, the Writ Petition is devoid of merits and is accordingly dismissed. No costs. _______________________ (R.SUBHASH REDDY, J.) 2nd March, 2009 Js. [1] (2007) 2 SCC 433