HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA WRIT PETITION No. 26706 OF 2003 DATED 12TH SEPTEMBER, 2011. BETWEEN The Organization of APSRTC, Depot Manager, Narayankhed Depot, Medak District, rep. by its Regional Manager and Depot Manager ….Petitioner and APSRTC National Mazdoor Union, regd.3108, Sangareddi, Medak District, rep. by its Regional Secretary, and anr. Respondents. HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA WRIT PETITION No. 26706 of 2003 ORDER: Challenging the Award dated 14.06.2002 in I.D.No. 13 of 2001 passed by the Industrial Tribunal-I, Hyderabad, the Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation ( for short ‘the APSRTC’) filed the present Writ Petition. By the aforesaid Award, the Tribunal set aside the review order dated 4.8.1997 of the Regional Manager, Medak Region and ordered to treat the workman-Ch.Mallaiah as ‘in service’ with continuity of service from the date of removal till the date of fresh appointment with all attendant benefits while withholding two annual increments with all benefits. It is the case of the petitioner-organization that one Sri Ch.Malliaha (hereinafter referred to as ‘the workman’) was appointed as a conductor in the service of the petitioner-organization on 20.12.1980 and that he was imposed several punishments for having committed misconduct on several occasions and that his annual increments were deferred five timeS and he was warned/censored for five times. While so, he was charge sheeted on 10.06.1996 on the ground that he was un- authorizedly absent to duty from 6.3.1996 to 2.6.1996 and after conducting due enquiry into the aforesaid charge levelled against the workman and giving reasonable opportunity to him, he was removed from service by order dated 3.9.1996. The appeal preferred by him against the removal order was dismissed by order dated 30.11.1996. In the review petition filed by the workman, the reviewing authority held that the charge levelled against the workman was held proved, however, it took a lenient view and passed the order dt.4.8.1997 directing to appoint the workman as a Conductor Grade II afresh. Pursuant thereto, the workman unconditionally accepted the aforesaid order and reported to duty. Thereafter, the first respondent-Union raised an Industrial Dispute being I.D.No.13 of 2001 with regard to denial of past service benefits to the workman. The Industrial Tribunal, upon consideration of the material evidence on record, came to the conclusion that the medical certificates produced by the workman was not considered by the primary authority-Depot Manager and the punishment was disproportionate to the gravity of the charge levelled against the workman. Holding so, the Tribunal set aside the order of the reviewing authority dated 4.8.1997 and passed the impugned award as stated supra. The learned Standing Counsel appearing for the petitioner-organization would submit that when the finding recorded by the enquiry officer was supported by evidence and the domestic enquiry conducted was valid having not been disputed, the Tribunal has no jurisdiction to interfere with the review order passed thereafter. He would further submit that the workman did not submit any application for extension of leave nor did he submit sick certificate and that he did not even submit explanation to the alleged charge sheet. He would therefore submit that the Tribunal failed to exercise its discretion conferred on it under Section 11-A of the I.D. Act. On the other hand, the learned Counsel appearing for the first respondent-Union submits that the Award of the Tribunal is just and proper and no valid grounds are made out before this Court to interfere with the same. He would submit that the authorities failed to appreciate the material available on record in support of sickness of the workman and that they failed to give cogent and valid reasons for grant of back wages from the date of removal till the date of reinstatement in as much as the workman remained unemployed during the said period. He placed reliance on the judgment of the learned single judge of this Court in M.Krishnam Raju Vs. Electronics Corporation of India {1995(1) ALD 478}. The charge levelled against the workman is that he was unauthorizedly absent from duty from 6.3.1996 to 2.6.1996 without prior permission and sanction of leave from competent authority. It was the explanation of the petitioner that in the first instance he was taken to Government Hospital, Narayanakhed for treatment and the said Hospital issued a sick certificate for the period from 2.3.1996 to 5.3.1996. Thereafter the workman was taken to a private doctor for better medication from 6.3.1996 onwards, for which he submitted a medical certificate to the petitioner-organization stating that he was unable to attend his duties owing to sickness and requested for grant of sick leave. Exs.W1 and W2 reveal that the petitioner was suffering from sickness from 13.3.1996 to 20.6.1996 and as such, he could not attend to his duties. However, the medical certificates of the private doctors stated to have been submitted by the workman were not accepted by the petitioner-organization and imposed punishment upon him solely considering his past record. When employee establishes acceptable cause for his absence, it does not constitute a misconduct. Further, In the decision relied on by the learned counsel for the workman stated supra, it was held that since the enquiry report is vitiated by ignoring the relevant fact viz., the medical certificates submitted by the workman for the entire period of absence, the finding that the misconduct was proved is unsustainable and consequently the order arose there from suffers from infirmity, for there is no application of mind to the complaint of the workman that his absence was entirely supported by medical certificates and had been ignored by the enquiry officer. As such, the punishment imposed upon the workman is unsustainable in law and on facts and therefore the tribunal rightly interfered with the order of the reviewing authority of the petitioner-organization. The Award of the Tribunal is manifestly based on the material evidence on record and there is no valid and legitimate grounds in this Writ Petition to interfere with the same. The other grounds raised by the petitioner that the tribunal has no jurisdiction to entertain the reference etc., merits no consideration in view of the judgment of the Apex Court in Rattan Sing Vs. Union of India {(1997)11 SCC 396}. The other contention in so far as it relates to conduct of domestic enquiry and finding of the enquiry officer is concerned, it is no doubt true that domestic enquiry and finding of the enquiring officer are valid, but, after the enquiry officer submitted its report to the petitioner- organization, it did not consider the same in the proper perspective and erred in coming to the conclusion of imposing punishment against the workman, which was grossly disproportionate to the charge levelled against him. In view of the foregoing reasons, I do not see any merit in the Writ Petition and the same is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. -------------------------------------------- JUSTICE ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA Dated 12th September, 2011. Msnro