THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No. 27061 of 1995 Dated: 28.11.2006 Between: T.Nagender … Petitioner AND The Presiding Officer, Labour Court-I, Hyderabad & another. … Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No. 27061 of 1995 ORDER:- This writ petition is filed questioning the Award of the Labour Court-I, Hyderabad, in I.D.No.407 of 1993 dated 07.02.1995 whereby the Labour Court declined to set aside the order of the 2nd respondent giving the petitioner voluntary retirement on medical grounds. The petitioner was appointed as a casual labour on 15.07.1961 and he was promoted as helper in the year 1971. On 21.01.1983, the 2nd respondent issued orders retiring the petitioner from service. According to the petitioner, the purported letters of his seeking voluntary retirement on medical grounds are fabricated and therefore his retirement on medical invalidation was wholly illegal and contrary to regulation No. 6(A) of APSRTC Employees Service Regulations 1964. Though the order retiring the petitioner was made on 21.01.1983, the petitioner through the Workers’ Union approached the conciliation officer in the year 1990 and the conciliation officer issued proceedings on 15.03.1991 reporting failure of conciliation proceedings, leading to the dispute being referred to the 1st respondent. Before the Labour Court, the 2nd respondent Management produced Exs.M1 to M3. Ex.M1 dated 28.06.1982 was a purported letter given by the petitioner seeking voluntary retirement on medical grounds. Ex.M2 is also a similar letter. Ex.M3 is the letter given by the petitioner on 21.01.1993 for settlement of amounts after his retirement. The Labour Court examined these letters and held that the petitioner admitted the signatures on Exs.M1 to M3, but, however, his contention was that these letters were fabricated by the Management, making use of the signatures on them. Except examining himself, the petitioner has not adduced any evidence to support and prove the said contention. The 1st respondent, Labour Court, therefore, gave a finding on the basis of the analysis of the facts and material on record that the petitioner failed to prove that the 2nd respondent has fabricated the letters by using his signatures. Sri S.A. Razack, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Labour Court failed to consider the matter from proper perspective. His contention is that the 2nd respondent Management has not produced any evidence in support of their stand and therefore, the evidence produced by the petitioner ought to have been accepted by the Labour Court. I am unable to accept this contention. The petitioner having set up the plea that his signatures were made use of by fabricating Exs.M1 to M3 by the 2nd respondent Management, the burden lies heavily on the petitioner to prove the said contention; more so, when he admitted his signatures on Exs.M1 to M3. The version of the petitioner appears to be artificial. Had respondent No.2 obtained the signatures by force and made use of them to retire the petitioner, it is expected of the petitioner to have issued a notice to the 2nd respondent, but no such notice was ever given by him. Nowhere in the entire proceedings the petitioner had disclosed the name of the officer, who obtained his signatures and the necessity for obtaining such signatures. The Labour Court, in my view, is justified in giving the finding that the petitioner failed to establish his case that Exs.M1 to M3 are fabricated documents. One other reason why I am not inclined to interfere in this matter is that the petitioner having received the voluntary retirement order as far back as January 1983, kept quiet till the year 1990 without questioning the same. The very initiation of proceedings by the petitioner suffers from inordinate delay. For the aforementioned reasons, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed and accordingly the same is dismissed, but in the circumstances without costs. _____________________________ C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Date: 28.11.2006 ES