HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA WRIT PETITION No.3977 of 2006 DATED 28th OCTOBER, 2010 BETWEEN. Mohammed Jani Basha …..Petitioner And The Hon’ble Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour court, Ananthapur, rep. by its Presiding Officer and ors. HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA WRIT PETITION No. 3977 of 2006 ORDER: This Writ Petition is filed challenging the legality and validity of the Award dated 28.3.2005 passed in I.D.No. 358 of 2002 by the first respondent-Labour Court, confirming the termination order passed by the second respondent against the petitioner. The petitioner was appointed as a Driver in the respondent- Corporation on 11.5.1995. The petitioner was unauthorisedly absenting to duty while he was working at Yemmganur Depot, and as such, he was kept under put off duty as he was working on casual basis. Thereafter, the respondent-Corporation issued a charge sheet dated 22.6.1994 with the following charges: 1.For having unauthorisedly absented for your duties from 16.6.1994 to 26.6.1994 as a result of which Corporation services were dislocated and much inconvenience was caused to the public as well as to the supervisions on duty which constitutes misconduct under Reg.28(xxvii) of APSRTC Employees (Conduct) Reg.1963. 2. For having failed to obtain prior sanction of leave or to submit any sick certificate issued by authorized Medical Officer within 49 hours which constitutes misconduct under Reg.28(xxxi) of APSRTC Employees (Conduct) Reg.1963. It is stated that the petitioner gave his explanation to the charge sheet denying the charges framed against him, stating that as he was suffering from back-ache for considerable length of time and underwent treatment in Government General Hospital, Kurnool and as such he could not attend the duties. He also stated that he underwent treatment from 28.12.1994 to 27.12.1995, 28.12.1995 to 31.12.1996, 1.1.1997 to 1.12.1997, 1.1.1998 to 31.12.1998 and 1.1.1999 to 6.7.1999. It was further stated that after recovery from back-ache, he approached the respondent-Corporation with fitness certificate. However, as the second respondent- Corporation already passed an order putting the petitioner under put-off duty, finally he was terminated from service on the ground that he never reported to duty as per the proceedings of the third respondent. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner filed an appeal before the appellate authority of the respondent-Corporation. The third respondent rejected the case of the petitioner by proceedings dated 15.2.2002. Aggrieved by the said action of the second respondent, the petitioner raised an Industrial Dispute before the first respondent- Labour Court vide I.D.No. 358 of 2002. The first respondent- Labour Court vide its Award dated 28.3.2005 rejected the case of the petitioner and confirmed the termination order passed by the second respondent. Hence this Writ Petition. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the punishment of termination imposed against the petitioner- workman is disproportionate to the alleged misconduct of absenteeism, that the first respondent-Labour court failed to consider the Medical Certificate obtained by the petitioner from the General Hospital, Kurnool showing treatment taken by him during the period of absenteeism and that the respondent- Corporation has not conducted any enquiry as per the APSRTC CCA Regulations. On the other hand, the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents-Corporation submitted that the Award passed by the first respondent-Labour Court is based on the evidence and not distorted or tainted with any material irregularity and that there are no grounds to interfere with the same. Perused the award of the Labour Court. The petitioner was appointed as a Driver in the respondent-Corporation on 11.5.1995. The petitioner was unauthorisedly absenting to duty while he was working at Yemmganur Depot, and as such, he was kept under put off duty as he was working on casual basis. Thereafter, the respondent-Corporation issued a charge sheet dated 22.6.1994 for having unauthorisedly absented for duties from 16.6.1994 to 26.6.1994, caused dislocation and much inconvenience to the public which constitutes misconduct and that failed to obtain prior sanction of leave or to submit any sick certificate issued by the authorized medical officer within 49 hours, which constitutes misconduct. The petitioner gave his explanation to the charge sheet denying the charges, stating that as he was suffering from back-ache for considerable length of time, he underwent treatment in Government General Hospital, Kurnool from 28.12.1994 to 27.12.1995, 28.12.1995 to 31.12.1996, 1.1.1997 to 1.12.1997, 1.1.1998 to 31.12.1998 and 1.1.1999 to 6.7.1999. It is to be seen that the said contention of the petitioner-workman was not supported by any oral or documentary evidence. He has not produced any medical record pertaining to the treatment taken by him. It is not in dispute that the petitioner was kept under put off duty as he was working on casual basis. Due to unauthorized absence, the said put off duty was raised on 28.12.1994 and he was advised to report to the Personal Officer, Kurnool for further posting orders. However, the petitioner approached the Regional Manager, Kurnool with a representation after lapse of eight years from 28.12.1994 for posting orders. However, as the same is barred by time, the said representation of the petitioner was not considered by the respondent-Corporation. The said approach of the petitioner clearly shows that he has no interest of his job and that he is negligent to his duties. It is also clear that while the petitioner was working at Yemmiganur Depot, the petitioner was unauthorisedly absenting to duty and therefore he was kept under put off duty. The respondent-Corporation after conducting a detailed enquiry raised the put off duty and advised the petitioner to report the Personal Officer, Kurnool for further posting orders. However, the petitioner failed to turn up and he reported before the second respondent long after eight years. If at all the petitioner is having interest in his job, he could have reported before the Regional Manager for posting orders immediate thereafter. The delay of eight years caused by the petitioner for reporting before the Personal Officer to get posting orders clearly shows that the petitioner was negligent to duty and he is not interested to discharge his duties. The first respondent-labour Court, having considered the entire material on record, rightly confirmed the termination order passed by the second respondent-Corporation. I do not see any merit in the Writ Petition. The Writ Petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. ---------------------------------- JUSTICE ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA Dated 28th October, 2010. Msnr.