IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION NO : 25097 of 2000 Between: K. Rajeshwari, W/o late Adi Reddy, Hindu Shayampet, Warangal District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Depot Manager, APSRTC., Narsampet, Depot, Warangal District, 2 The Industrial Tribunal Cum Labour Court, Warangal District. .....RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to issue a Writ a direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the orders of the Tribunal dt.25-4- 97 in I.D. NO. 280/93 as erroneous and clarify the order and direct the 1st respondent to pay the service benefits of my late husband from the date of the appointment till the date of his death i.e. 24-6-1996 and pass such other order or orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. Counsel for the Petitioner :SMT.S.A.V.RATNAM Counsel for Respondent No.1: Sri P.Rajasekhar Reddy (SC for APSRTC) Counsel for Respondent No.2 : GP FOR LABOUR The Court made the following : THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION No.25097 of 2000 ORDER: For the proved misconduct of unauthorized absence from duty from 13.09.1990 onwards, a charge memo was issued to the petitioner’s husband Sri K.Adi Reddy, on 05.12.1990. Thereafter, an enquiry was held, which ultimately resulted in the workman being imposed the punishment of removal from service, vide proceedings dated 09.07.1991. While the charge levelled was for unauthorized absence from duty from 13.09.1990 till the show cause notice, the fact remains that even thereafter, i.e, during the course of enquiry and till the order of removal was passed, the workman did not report for duty, though there was no order precluding him from joining duty. He eventually died because of tuberculosis on 24.06.1996. Questioning the order of removal, he filed I.D.No.280 of 1993 before the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Warangal, under Section 2-A(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short “the Act”). During the pendency of the Industrial Dispute, the workman died and his widow and daughter were brought on record as his legal representatives. The Labour Court, on an analysis of the evidence on record, held the charge of unauthorized absence, as established. However, on the quantum of punishment, the Labour Court took a lenient view. The Labour Court took note of the previous service record of the workman, which did not show him in good light. The Labour Court held that the punishment of removal from service was disproportionate to the gravity of misconduct and set aside the order of removal. The respondents were directed to consider the period of unauthorized absence from duty from 13.09.1990 till 24.06.1996, as loss of pay and petitioners 2 to 5, legal representatives of the petitioner, were held entitled for all service benefits, which the respondent-corporation was directed to pay to the legal representatives, by treating the service of the workman from the date of appointment till 12.09.1990 as continuous service. Smt.S.A.V.Rathnam, learned counsel for the petitioner, would contend that the petitioner’s husband had joined in the respondent- Corporation as early as in the year 1978 and had put in a long period of service. Learned counsel would submit that instead of treating the period of absence as loss of pay, the Labour Court ought to have called for the records and verified as to whether there was any leave available to the credit of the workman and given him the benefit of such leave, if any available. Learned counsel would contend that, as a result of the order passed by the Labour Court, the petitioner herein had received a much smaller amount by way of terminal benefits and that the leave available to the credit of the petitioner’s husband ought to have been taken into consideration, more so since he was absent from duty on account of his suffering from tuberculosis, which eventually resulted in his death. I find considerable force in the submission of the learned counsel. Since the petitioner (legal heir of the deceased workman) would be in no position to produce the necessary evidence before the Labour Court, the Labour Court ought to have summoned the leave records of the deceased workman and ought to have examined whether there was any leave to his credit and if so, whether he could be extended the benefit of having the period of his absence, to the extent of leave available, treated as leave. The Labour court could also have treated the period of absence till the death of the workman on 24.06.1996 as leave on loss of pay, in which event, the services rendered by the deceased workman would have been continuous and his legal heirs would have been entitled to have the period reckoned for the purpose of payment of terminal benefits. These are all questions, which, however, were required to be examined by the Labour Court, while exercising jurisdiction under Section 11-A of the Act and cannot be adjudicated by this Court in Certiorari proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. I consider it appropriate, therefore, to set aside the award only to the limited extent the punishment imposed on the petitioner’s husband was substituted by the Labour Court. The Labour Court shall re-examine the quantum of punishment, under Section 11-A of the Act. Since the workman died more than a decade ago, and it is his widow and daughter who are fighting the litigation, I consider it appropriate to direct the Labour court to put petitioners 2 to 5 on notice, give them an opportunity of being heard after summoning the leave records from the respondent-Corporation and thereafter pass a reasoned award afresh, in accordance with law, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. ________________________ (Ramesh Ranganathan, J) 18th February 2008. sh To 1 The Depot Manager, APSRTC., Narsampet, Depot, Warangal District, 2 The Industrial Tribunal Cum Labour Court, Warangal District. 3 2CCs to G.P for Labour. 4 2CD copies