THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION No. 3160 OF 2006 Dt: 12th March 2008 Between: The Depot Manager, APSRTC, Bhadrachalam Depot, Khaammam District …Petitioner and S.Babu Rao & another. …Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION No. 3160 OF 2006 O R D E R: The 1st respondent is employed as a driver in the Bhadrachalam Depot of APSRTC. He remained absent between 26.5.2001 and 4.6.2001. He submitted a Medical Certificate, dated 29.5.2001, said to have been issued by the Medical Officer of Area Hospital, Bhadrachalam. A charge sheet was issued framing a charge against the 1st respondent. Explanation was submitted by the 1st respondent to the said charge, and thereafter, domestic enquiry was conducted. The Enquiry Officer found that the charge framed against the 1st respondent is proved. On a consideration of the report of the Enquiry Officer and the explanation offered by the 1st respondent, the petitioner passed an order, dated 2.5.2002, removing the 1st respondent, from service. Appeal and review, preferred by the 1st respondent, before the concerned authorities, were not fruitful. Therefore, he approached the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Warangal, by raising a dispute, under Section 2-A (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act. The same was taken up in I.D.No.46 of 2003. Through its award, dated 21.6.2005, the Labour Court had set aside the order of removal, passed against the 1st respondent, and directed his reinstatement, with full back wages. The said award is challenged in this writ petition. The petitioner contends that the charge leveled against the 1st respondent is proved and the Labour Court, even after finding that the medical certificate was not produced, as required under Regulation-11 of the Leave Regulations, directed reinstatement of the 1st respondent, with back wages. The 1st respondent filed a counter affidavit, stating inter alia that the absence was warranted, on account of serious illness. It is also stated that the Labour Court appreciated the matter from proper perspective. Heard Smt P. Rajani, learned counsel for the petitioner, and Sri P. Sreedhar Rao, learned Standing Counsel for the 1st respondent. It is a matter of record that the 1st respondent remained absent for duties, from 26.5.2001 to 4.6.2001. He produced the medical certificate, dated 29.5.2001, marked as Ex.M.5. The Medical Officer, who issued Ex.M-5, opined that the patient needs 8 days of rest or treatment, on account of enteric fever. It is true that the 1st respondent was under obligation to submit the medical certificate, within 48 hours from the date of absence. However, instances are not lacking, where the employees would be disabled for variety of reasons, in complying with the requirement. The petitioner did not doubt the genuinety of Ex.M-5. It was elicited from the 1st respondent that during the period of leave, he traveled to a place to see his mother, who is said to have fallen sick. Even if that is true, it needs to be observed that unlike the other duties, a driver of a heavy vehicle, like a bus, must be in perfect condition and any ailment would have its own impact, upon the nature of duties. Notwithstanding the findings recorded by the Labour Court that the period of absence was certified through Ex.M-5, this court is of the view that the 1st respondent ought to have been prompt in reporting the necessary facts to the petitioner. In case, any aggressive treatment is needed, the organization itself had full-fledged hospital. The unauthorized absence for such a long period would have its own impact, on providing transport services to the public in general. While no exception can be taken to the direction issued by the Labour Court for reinstatement of the petitioner, the 1st respondent cannot be given a complete clean chit, that too, at the cost of public exchequer. Hence, the writ petition is partly allowed, directing that the reinstatement of the 1st respondent into service, shall be with 50% back wages. In all other respects, the award shall remain intact. There shall be no order as to costs. _________________ 12th March 2008 PAN