IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) PRESENT: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY TUESDAY, THE TWENTY FIFTH DAY OF NOVEMBER, TWO THOUSAND EIGHT ONLY WRIT PETITION No.20167 of 1998 Between: Pothina Krishna and five others. … Petitioners And The Commissioner, Visakhapatnam Municipal Corporation, Visakhapatnam and another. … Respondents Counsel for the petitioner: Sri Madhusudhana Reddy for Sri A.Srinivasa Sarma. Counsel for the respondents: None. This Court made the following: ORDER:- This Writ Petition is filed for a Writ of Certiorari to quash award dated 10-7-1997 in I.D.No.185 of 1993 on the file of the Presiding Officer-cum-Labour Court, Visakhapatnam-respondent No.2. Petitioner No.1, who died even during the pendency of the dispute before respondent No.2, was a permanent employee of respondent No.1- Visakhapatnam Municipal Corporation (for short “the Corporation”). He raised the industrial dispute against the purported termination of his services without notice and following the procedure in accordance with the service regulations of the Corporation. The Corporation resisted the said claim by taking the stand that the petitioner, who was a regular employee since 1977, applied for leave in November, 1984 and thereafter he did not join duty nor he informed the Corporation about his whereabouts. Respondent No.2, after considering the oral evidence adduced by both the parties gave a finding that nothing is elicited from the cross- examination of MW.1, examined on behalf of the Corporation, to disprove the plea of the Corporation that the petitioner himself failed to turn up. On the strength of this finding, respondent No.2 held that as the petitioner has voluntarily abandoned the service for a long time of five years, without any intimation, there was legal termination of his employment. In my considered view, in the absence of the petitioner adducing any evidence to show that after expiry of the leave in November, 1984 he approached the Corporation and in spite of the same the Corporation refused to take him back into service, respondent No.2 is justified in rejecting the claim of the petitioner on the ground that the long absence of the petitioner has brought about the legal termination of his employment. For the above-mentioned reasons, I do not find any reason to interfere with the award passed by respondent No.2. The Writ Petition is, therefore, dismissed. ---------------------------------------- C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY,J Date:25-11-2008 MNR