HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No.567 of 2001 Date: 25th November 2010 Between : Mohd. Shafi. …….Petitioner And Addl. Industrial Tribunal-cum-Addl. Labour Court, Hyderabad & another. ….Respondents HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No.567 of 2001 ORDER : In this writ petition, the petitioner seeks directions by way of Mandamus, declaring the award, dated 7th October 1999, passed in I.D.No.44 of 1999 by the Additional Industrial Tribunal-cum-Additional Labour Court, Hyderabad, to the extent of denying full backwages and attendant benefits, as illegal and also to direct the respondents to treat the service of petitioner as continuous service from the date of removal till the date of reinstatement and pay backwages to him. The petitioner was initially appointed as a Driver in the service of the Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation in Ranigunj-II Depot, on 8th of February 1988. He was absent to his duties for the period from 04.03.1995 to 13.03.1995. On the ground that he was unauthorisedly absent for the aforesaid period, disciplinary proceedings were initiated against him by framing the following charge : “For having absented to duty from 4-3-95 to 13- 3-95 which constitutes misconduct in terms of Reg.28(xxvii) of APSRTC Employees (Conduct) Reg. 1963”. For the aforesaid charge, petitioner has filed his explanation, and as the explanation was not convincing, a domestic inquiry was conducted. On the ground that the charge framed against the petitioner was proved, he was removed from service pursuant to an order passed by the disciplinary authority on 19th of October 1995. As against the same, the petitioner has preferred an appeal on 4th of December 1995, before the Deputy Chief Traffic Manager, Secunderabad, who, after considering the said appeal, by proceedings, dated 26.02.1996, ordered for reinstatement of petitioner into service and posted him in the Contonment Depot of the Corporation. A copy of the said orders is sent to the petitioner by registered post with acknowledgement due. It is stated that a copy of the said order is also displayed on the notice board of the Depot, where the petitioner was working. Though he was ordered to be reinstated by the appellate authority, the petitioner did not approach the respondents, but he raised an industrial dispute in the year 1999 by filing an application under Section 2-A(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, before the Additional Industrial Tribunal-cum- Additional Labour Court, Hyderabad. The Tribunal, by the impugned award, relying on the medical certificate produced by the petitioner, recorded a finding that in view of his admission to the Government hospital, the petitioner was physically unable to present to duty, and further recorded a finding that the explanation submitted by the petitioner was convincing, therefore, the charge framed against the petitioner is not proved, and accordingly, ordered for his reinstatement. In this writ petition, it is the case of the petitioner that as he was removed illegally, he is entitled for the benefit of continuity of service from the date of removal to the date of reinstatement and also for backwages for the said period. It is submitted by the learned counsel for petitioner that he was not communicated any order passed by the appellate authority, as such, there was no occasion for him to approach the respondents for joining duty, pursuant to the orders of reinstatement. A detailed counter affidavit is filed by the 2nd respondent. In the counter affidavit, while denying the various allegations made by the petitioner, it is stated that according to Regulation 11(2) of the A.P.S.R.T.C. Employees’ (Leave) Regulations, 1963, an employee should furnish details of his absence from duty and produce medical certificate to the controlling officer within 48 hours of his absenting from duty, and if the employee is undergoing medical treatment at Corporation hospital or other Government hospital/notified hospital, the sick certificate should be communicated to the controlling officer within 48 hours. It is stated that in the present case, the petitioner did not inform about his sickness and the medical certificate, dated 20th March 1995, was submitted by him after issuance of charge sheet, to cover up his absence and to escape from the charges framed against him. It is further stated that against the order of removal, petitioner preferred an appeal on 4th of December 1995 and the appellate authority has ordered for reinstatement by order, dated 26th February 1996, issued in Proceedings No.PA/19(145)/95-SM(O)-SD, and a copy of the said order was sent to the petitioner by registered post acknowledgement due and the said order was also displayed on the notice board of Ranigunj-II Depot for a period of 7 days. The petitioner did not join duty pursuant to the order of the appellate authority, dated 26th of February 1996, and instead, he raised an industrial dispute in the year 1995 and obtained directions. It is submitted by the learned Standing Counsel appearing for respondents that though the appellate authority has passed orders permitting the petitioner to join duty, as the petitioner himself did not choose to join, and instead, as he has filed an Industrial Dispute nearly after three years, he is not entitled for either backwages or continuity of service. In this case, it is to be noticed that in the domestic inquiry proceedings, a finding was recorded to the effect that the charge framed against the petitioner is proved. Primarily, a finding is recorded alleging that the certificate produced by the petitioner is only after initiation of disciplinary proceedings and issuance of charge sheet and the same is produced to cover up the charge framed against him. It is also the case of the respondent- Corporation that the medical certificate was not produced as per the Regulations titled as “The A.P.S.R.T.C. Employees’ (Leave) Regulations, 1963”. Before the Industrial Tribunal, on behalf of the petitioner herein, a memo was filed, stating that he is not disputing the validity of the domestic inquiry, and in that view of the matter, inquiry was held valid. Inspite of the same, the Tribunal has appreciated the evidence and recorded a finding that the charge framed against the petitioner is not proved, and ordered for reinstatement. In this case, it is to be noticed that before approaching the Tribunal, the petitioner has availed the remedy of appeal as per the Regulations, which was allowed by the competent authority as early as on 26.02.1996, but inspite of the same, the petitioner did not choose to join duty. Although it is the case of the petitioner that the order of the appellate authority was not communicated to him, but from the counter affidavit filed on behalf of respondents, it is evident that the order of the appellate authority was sent to the petitioner’s address by registered post with acknowledgment due, and the same was also displayed on the notice board in the Depot. In that view of the matter, there is no reason to disbelieve the statement made by the respondents in the counter affidavit. Even otherwise, having filed appeal, it was the responsibility of the petitioner to verify before the appellate authority with regard to the appeal filed by him and orders passed on such appeal. Having filed appeal, the plea of the petitioner that he was not aware of the orders passed by the appellate authority, cannot be accepted. In any event, having failed to join duty as per the orders of the appellate authority, the petitioner approached the Industrial Tribunal nearly after 3 years i.e. in 1999, and raised an industrial dispute by filing an application under Section 2-A(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, and in that view of the matter, the petitioner is not entitled for any relief either for continuity of service or other monetary benefits of backwages. As the petitioner has not worked inspite of the orders of the appellate authority, the principle of ‘no work-no pay’ shall apply to the claim of the petitioner. In that view of the matter, I do not find any ground for grant of relief as prayed for. For the aforesaid reasons, the writ petition is devoid of merit and it is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. __________________ R.SUBHASH REDDY, J 25th November 2010 ajr