HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH Writ Petition No.11113 of 2000 ORDER: Heard both the learned counsel. The erstwhile workers, 227 in number, of Nellore Cooperative Spinning Mills Limited, the fifth respondent herein, which had become sick and closed w.e.f., 04.03.1997, extending the benefits of Voluntary Retirement Scheme (for short ‘the Scheme’) to its workers, filed this writ petition seeking a writ of mandamus to direct the fifth respondent- Mill to pay the benefits payable under the Scheme. A counter affidavit has been filed stating that pursuant to the extension of the Scheme to the fifth respondent-Mill, all the unions of the fifth respondent-Mill have agreed to accept the benefits under the Scheme and forego the benefits under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. That the benefits under the Scheme were worked out and all the workers, including the petitioners, have been relieved of their duties indicating the relieving date as 04.03.1997, that the amounts so worked out were also paid to them in the month of October/November, 1999 and that all the petitioners have agreed for the benefits under the Scheme as per the letter Rc.No.219/P.E.II/99-2, dated 21.06.1999, and received the amounts, without any prejudice whatsoever. As per the said letter, dated 21.06.1999, the petitioners are entitled to: (i) 45 days wages for every completed year of service; (ii) 15 days wages for every completed year as gratuity as per the Rules; (iii) Earned Leave encashment as per Rules; (iv) One month notice pay; (v) Reimbursement of expenses for home travel; (vi) Forego closure compensation etc., and other benefits under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947; and (vii) Date of closure will be the cut off date. If the amounts paid to any of the petitioners do not reflect the benefits, for which, they are entitled to under any of the above- mentioned categories, it is always open to the petitioners to make an appropriate representation and work out their remedies in accordance with law. But this Court while exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India cannot adjudicate the same. Therefore, the writ petition is dismissed with liberty to the petitioners to work out the remedies available to them under law. No costs. __________________ (V.ESWARAIAH, J) Dt.09.12.2010 Note: Issue CC in one week. (b/o) VGB W.P.No.11341 of 2010 The petitioner seeks a writ of mandamus declaring the action of respondent No.3-College in relieving him by the impugned order, dated 19.06.2000. The third respondent-College by the aforesaid order, dated 19.06.2000, kept the appointment of the petitioner as Lecturer in Physics in the said College in abeyance until receipt of further orders from the Commissioner and accordingly, he was relieved on the FN of 19.06.2000. The said order is questioned before this Court and this Court by order, dated 08.09.2000 suspended the said order in W.P.M.P.No.14435 of 2000 and the said suspension order is still in force and the petitioner is working as Lecturer in the third respondent-College. It is stated that the Commissioner has not passed any orders cancelling the selection and appointment of the petitioner. Earlier, the Commissioner of College Education vide his proceedings, dated 03.05.2000 and the telegram dated 19.06.2000, directed the third respondent-College to keep in abeyance his appointment on the ground that as per G.O.Ms.No.--, after issuing the notification, the schedule castes, refere, SC-- . The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that now the schedule castes rationalisation of the reservation ordinance 6 to 1999 which was became itself was struck down by the Full Bench of this Court and upheld by the Supreme Court. Therefore, as of now, there cannot be any categorisation of the classes with the Scheduled Castes and all the castes can compete equally and the petitioner is selected and it cannot be said that the petitioner illegal. As the petitioner is continuing and the said contention of the learned counsel has not been controverted, the writ petition is allowed. W.P.No.11872 of 2000 Heard both the learned counsel. The petitioner was removed from service after issuing a charge sheet, dated 02.05.1998, for his unauthorised absence from 27.04.1998 to 02.05.1998 i.e., for a period of five days, without prior permission or sanction of leave. After issuing show-cause notice and calling upon the petitioner to submit his explanation, the impugned removal order, dated 27.03.1999, was passed. The said order was questioned before the appellate authority i.e., Deputy Chief Traffic Manager (R), Visakahpatnam and the appellate authority by the order, dated 29.07.1999, ordered for the reinstatement of the petitioner into service as Conductor Grade-II with the following terms and conditions: The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the action of the respondents in removing from service for unauthorised absence for five days alone is without any justification and arbitrary. It is also submitted that as the petitioner fell sick, he could not attend the duty on those days and he also submitted a medical certificate to that effect. The appellate authority having rightly passed the impugned order reinstating the petitioner by imposing the aforesaid conditions, the reduction of one increment for a period of one year insofar as terms and condition (3) is concerned is sufficient and the said one year increment for a period of one year shall not have any effect postposne future increments. Accordingly, insofar as condition No.3 is concerned, the same is modified with regard to his reduction of pay by one increment stage for a one year without any cumulative effect. In normal course, the Court could have relegated the petitioner to the Labour Court. But, having regard to the facts of the case and as the alleged misconduct is only unauthorised absence for a period of five days and more so, when the petitioner has submitted that he fell sick, it is appropriate to modify the condition No.3. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of modifying the condition No.3 by reduction of pay by one incremental stage for a period of one year alone without having any cumulative effect. W.P.No.11980 of 2000 The petitioner questions the order of the Divisional Manager, Chittoor, dated 23.11.1983, in removing him from service from the post of Depot Clerk, Madanapalli Depot, as confirmed by the appellate authority i.e., the Regional Manager, -0, Nellore, dated 31.10.1986 and to quash the same. The petitioner while working as Depot Clerk in the Mandanapalli Depot, APSRTC, nine charges were framed by issuing charge sheet dated 09.07.1981 and the Enquiry Officer submitted a report and based on the report, the Divisional Manager, APSRTC issued a show-cause notice calling upon the petitioner to submit the explanation and after submitting the explanation, dated 17.11.1983, the removal order, dated 22.09.1983, was passed. Against the said order, the petitioner also filed an appeal and the appellate authority after re-appreciating all the entire facts and the contentions, confirmed the removal order. Questioning the said order, the petitioner earlier raised an industrial dispute in I.A.No.153 of 1987, in which, a preliminary issue relating to the jurisdiction of the Labour Court to adjudicate the issue was raised by the APSRTC stating that the petitioner is not a workmen as defined under Section 25 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and the Labour Court by its order, dated 31.01.1999, held that the petitioner is not a workman and therefore, as there was no jurisdiction to adjudicate the issue, merits were not decided by the Labour Court. Questioning the said order, the petitioner filed W.P.No.6684 of 2000 on the file of this Court contending that the Labour Court has got jurisdiction to adjudicate the dispute. But, this Court did not accept the contention and accordingly dismissed the said writ petition by order, dated 05.03.1997, against which, a writ appeal was stated to have been filed and the same was also dismissed. Therefore the petitioner filed the present writ petition in the year 2000 questioning the removal order, dated 22.11.1983 as confirmed by the appellate authority vide his order, dated 31.10.1986. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that neither the enquiry officer nor the disciplinary authority have followed the principles of natural justice and the enquiry report itself is illegal and against the principles of natural justice