IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 9175 of 2008 Between: T.Babu Rao S/o.Muthaiah Office of the Depot Manager, Miryalguda, Nalgonda District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The A.P.S.R.T.C. Rep. by its Depot Manager, Miryalguda Bus Depot, Miryalguda, Nalgonda District. 2 The Deputy Chief Mechanical Engineer, A.P.S.R.T.C. Nalgonda, Nalgonda District. 3 The Regional Manager, A.P.S.R.T.C. Nalgonda, Nalgonda District. 4 The Labour Court-III, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad, rep. by its Presiding Officer. .....RESPONDENT(S) 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 to issue an appropriate Writ, Order or direction, preferably one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the Award dated 20-7-2004 in I.D.No.47 of 2002 passed by the Labour Court-III, Hyderabad, published in G.O.Rt.No.1843, Labour, Employment, Training and Factories (LAB-1) Dept., dated 29.09.2004 and Errata in G.O.Rt.No.555, Labour, Employment, Training and FActories (LAB-1) Dept., dated 01.03.2005 in so far as it relates to denial of granting continuity of service back wages and other attendant benefits to the petitioner (from 22.4.2004 being the date of removal of the petitioner) as arbitrary, illegal and contrary to law and consequently direct the respondents to grant the said benefits to the petitioner herein while directing the respondents to pay all arrears of salary etc., to the petitioner forthwith; and pass such other or further orders as are necessary. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.KUSURI.SATYANARAYANA Counsel for the Respondent No.: SMT.B.G.UMA DEVI The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 9175 of 2008 ORDER: Petitioner is working as a Painter in the Miryalaguda Depot of A.P.S.R.T.C. The Depot Manager, 1st respondent herein, issued two charge memos; one, dated 14.08.1986, in relation to the unauthorized absence between 09.08.1996 and 14.08.1996 and another charge memo, dated 23.09.1996, as regards the unauthorized absence between 21.08.1996 and 19.09.1996. It was alleged that the petitioner left the Head Quarters, without prior permission. The petitioner submitted his explanation and not satisfied with the same, the 1st respondent ordered domestic enquiry. The Enquiry Officer found the charges, except the one relating to the leaving of Head Quarters, as proved. Through his order, dated 22.04.2000, the 1st respondent removed the petitioner from service. The departmental remedies availed by the petitioner were not fruitful. Therefore, he filed I.D.No.47 of 2002 in Labour Court-III, Hyderabad. Through its award, dated 20.07.2004, the Labour Court had set aside the order of removal and directed reinstatement of the petitioner into service as a fresh candidate. It denied the continuity of service, back wages and attendant benefits. The petitioner feels aggrieved by the award, to the extent it denied the benefits, referred to above. Heard Sri Satyanarayana, learned counsel for the petitioner and Smt. B.G.Uma Devi, learned Standing Counsel for respondents 1 to 3. Though two separate charge memos were issued, the gist of the allegation proved against the petitioner is that he remained unauthorizedly absent for a spell of 5 days and 28 days respectively. Other ancillary charges were held not proved. The petitioner stated that the absence was, on account of the fact that his wife suddenly became ill. The Tribunal, no doubt, agreed with the findings recorded by the Enquiry Officer. However, it held that the punishment imposed against the petitioner was disproportionate. There may be justification for the Labour Court in denying the benefit of back wages, since the absence of the petitioner was unauthorised. However, denial of continuity of service would deprive the petitioner, the fruits of his labour for one decade. The emoluments themselves are not that exorbitant. The past service would certainly have its relevance, in the context of the calculation of terminal benefits. The averment of the petitioner that his wife has fallen seriously ill is not disputed. This Court is of the view that the petitioner is entitled for the benefit of continuity of service, without any immediate financial obligation on the part of the Corporation. Hence, the writ petition is partly allowed, directing that the award passed by the Labour Court shall be modified to the effect that the petitioner shall be reinstated with continuity of service, but without back wages and without any financial obligation on account of the continuity of service, except for the fixation of pay scale prospectively and for retirement benefits. There shall be no order as to costs. _________ 24.04.2008 JSU ..... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1.2CCs to 2.2CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WP{KURR} THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 9175 of 2008 Date: 24.04.2008 JSU