THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU W.P.No.1218 of 2006 ORAL ORDER: This writ petition is directed against the award made in I.D.No.114 of 2000 dated 24.7.2002 on the file of the learned Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Warangal, wherein the claim petition filed by the petitioner under Section 2-A(2) of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 seeking to set aside the removal order dated 8.5.1995 was allowed partly directing the respondent-management to reinstate the petitioner into service forthwith. Petitioner is workman and second respondent is management of APSRTC. It appears, petitioner was appointed as Driver on 21.2.1991 and his services were regularized on 1.8.1994. While that being so, it appears petitioner was absented from duty for a short period from 11.12.1994 to 16.12.1994. Therefore, a charge sheet was issued to him and the petitioner submitted his explanation to the said charge sheet. Having not satisfied with the same, an enquiry was ordered and the enquiry officer, after conducting a detailed enquiry, held the petitioner guilty of the charges. Thereafter, the disciplinary authority, on the basis of the enquiry report and other material, passed removal order dated 8.5.1995. Aggrieved by the same, petitioner preferred appeal and revision and both were dismissed. Having left with no other option, petitioner raised industrial dispute before the Labour Court under Section 2-A(2) of I.D. Act. Before the Labour Court, it was the case of the petitioner that the enquiry was not properly conducted and the explanation submitted by him was not properly considered and absolutely there was no evidence to hold him guilty of the charges. Further, even assuming that the charges are proved, which are trivial in nature, punishment of removal from service is shockingly disproportionate to that of the misconduct alleged. The respondent-management filed a detailed counter denying the allegations made by the petitioner and submitted that the petitioner was bereft of clean record. He has suffered several punishments for the same misconduct of absenteeism. Further, the enquiry was properly conducted and the findings recorded by the enquiry officer are based on evidence. On a detailed consideration of the entire material placed before it, the Labour Court held that it is clear from the report of the enquiry officer and postal endorsement that the charge sheet was returned unserved with postal endorsement that the addressee was not residing in the village, when a show cause notice for removal of the petitioner from service , too, was attempted to be sent to the same address by RPAD, that too was returned with postal endorsement that the party was not residing in the village. Therefore, exhibition of show cause notice on the notice board of the Depot from 24.4.1995 to 30.4.1995 with signatures of two witnesses could, by no stretch of imagination be held to be sufficient service, as the petitioner was neither available in the village nor attending to his duties. Under those circumstances, the Labour Court held that the enquiry conducted ex parte is in gross violation of principles of natural justice. Therefore, while setting aside the impugned order of removal directed the respondent to reinstate the petitioner into service forthwith. It was further held that however the respondent is at liberty to hold a de nova enquiry against the petitioner by causing service of charge sheet on him and appointing another enquiry officer and afford him with fair and reasonable opportunity of defending himself and take such action as is deemed necessary. Aggrieved by the order insofar as it went against the petitioner directing de nova enquiry, the present writ petition is filed. The learned counsel for petitioner states that the petitioner has already suffered for the charge of absenteeism for a short period from 11.12.1994 to 16.12.1994. Had the explanation offered by the petitioner was accepted, even this misconduct did not arose. For such a simple misconduct, the question of conducting de nova enquiry does not arise. Now it is given to understand that in pursuance of the award passed by the Labour Court, the petitioner was reinstated into service, and though there was no stay as to conducting of enquiry, till date no enquiry was conducted nor any new charge sheet has been issued. Therefore, I am of the opinion that instead of remanding the matter for conducting fresh enquiry into the matter, I deem it appropriate to give a quietus to the litigation here itself by modifying the order passed by the Labour Court. Under those circumstances, the award passed by the Labour Court is modified and to be read as under: “The Respondent-management is directed to reinstate the petitioner into service with continuity of service and attendant benefits, but without any back wages. Further, it is made clear that there is no necessity of conducting any fresh enquiry into the matter, which could be a futile exercise.” With the above observations and directions, the writ petition is disposed of. No order as to costs. ______________ C.V.RAMULU, J Date: 9.2.2011 DA THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU W.P.No.1218 of 2006 9.2.2011 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU W.P.No.1218 of 2006 Date: 9th February, 2011 Between: K.Swamy .. Petitioner And The Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, rep.by its Presiding Officer, Warangal and another. .. Respondents