THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. RAMULU Wednesday, 13th day of February,2008 W.P.No.15850 of 2000 Between:- V. Chandra Mohan … Petitioner and Industrial Tribunal-cum- Labour Court, Warangal, and another … Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. RAMULU W.P.No.15850 of 2000 ORAL ORDER: This Writ Petition is filed challenging the Award dated 25-11- 1998 made in I.D.No.115 of 1996 on the file of Industrial Tribunal-cum- Labour Court, Warangal insofar as denying back wages, continuity of service and other attendant benefits while directing fresh appointment of the petitioner is concerned. Petitioner is workman. Respondent No.2 is Management. It appears, petitioner was appointed as an Office Boy in the respondent-Corporation with effect from 26-5-1978 and he had served for more than 15 years without any blame whatsoever. While that being so, on 7-11-1993 he fell sick and suffered mild paralytic stroke and, therefore, he could not attend to his duties. Respondent- Corporation issued a charge sheet on 15-3-1994 stating that the petitioner unauthorizedly absented from duties. After conducting a detailed enquiry into the charge framed against the petitioner, he was removed from service on 4-8-1994. Aggrieved thereby, petitioner raised a dispute under Section 2-A(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act,1947 before the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court at Warangal. It was the case of the petitioner that he had put in 15 years of service as an Office Boy without any blame and on 7-11-1993 when he suffered a paralytic stroke, he could not attend to his duties. According to the petitioner, he had sent Telegrams to the respondent-Corporation seeking to grant leave. That was not taken into consideration and in the meanwhile, charge sheet dated 15-3-1994 was issued. For a trivial charge of this nature he was removed from service, which is arbitrary and illegal. Respondent-Management filed a detailed counter stating that absenteeism is a matter of record and the petitioner did not inform nor applied leave nor obtained prior permission. The four months continuous absence of the petitioner caused lot of inconvenience to the office of the 2nd respondent and in view of the gravity of the charge, he was removed from service and as such, no interference is called for by the Labour Court. Before the Labour Court, though no oral or documentary evidence was adduced by either side, on the basis of the material available on record, it came to the conclusion that the enquiry conducted by the Management was proper and valid and the charges were proved; but, insofar as punishment was concerned, it was felt that it was disproportionate to that of the misconduct and, therefore, ordered for fresh appointment of the petitioner into service. Challenging the same, the present Writ Petition is filed. Heard both sides. The fact that the petitioner suffered paralytic stroke is not in dispute. In a case of this nature, not attending to duties for more than 4 months may not be unusual. May be, he has not produced proper medical certificate etc., but that does not mean that the petitioner, who had put in 15 years of long and unblemish service, could have been removed from service unceremoniously. Labour Court did not take this into consideration and made a pedantic approach and directed only fresh appointment of the petitioner denying 15 long years of service put in by him before his removal from service. I am of the opinion that the Award passed by the Labour Court is liable to be modified. Accordingly, to meet the ends of justice, the impugned Award is modified directing to reinstate the petitioner with continuity of service, but without any back wages and the service rendered by the petitioner from the date of his initial appointment till the date of his retirement shall be counted for the purpose of retiral benefits etc. With the above modification of the impugned Award, the Writ Petition is disposed of. No order as to costs. 13-2-2008 prk