Judgment · High Court

Order

Petitioner was employed as a Driver in the Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation on 24-03-1980. Through proceedings, dated 08-06-2005, issued by the Depot Manager, Achampet, he was removed from service on the ground that he remained unauthorizedy absent from duties between 01-11-2003 and 23-11-2003. After exhausting departmental remedies, the petitioner filed I.D. No.226 of 2009 in the Labour Court – III, Hyderabad. The I.D. was dismissed by the Labour Court through award, dated 08-10-2010.

#2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was absent on account of serious illness and is unable to function as driver, and for that minor lapse, he was removed from service. He submits that the Labour Court did not exercise its jurisdiction under Section 11-A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short ‘the Act’). According to him, the benefit of unblemished service, spread over for a quarter of century, was virtually nullified.

#3. Learned Standing Counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, submits that on account of the unauthorized absence of the petitioner, the services in the Depot were seriously affected. He contends that in the domestic enquiry and as well as in the proceedings before the Labour Court, it was clearly established that the petitioner is guilty of serious misconduct. It is further stated that there were instances of awarding punishments on the petitioner on earlier occasions also.

#4. The allegation that lead to removal of the petitioner from service, was that he remained absent from 01-11-2003 to 23-11-2003. Petitioner stated that he suffered from Jaundice and he took treatment at Hyderabad. He further pleaded that severe body pains existed and he was not in a position to discharge functions of driver. Petitioner further states that he sent leave letter and medical certificate through his wife along with a Conductor of the Depot. This aspect was not at all analysed either by the disciplinary authority or by the Labour Court. It is rather unfortunate that Labour Court has taken into account, the alleged periods of absence attributed to the petitioner, subsequent to initiation of the proceedings.

#5. Time and again, this Court held that the absence for subsequent period, cannot be taken into account, unless independent charges were framed for it. At any rate, the Labour Court has the discretion, discretion under Section 11-A of the Act, even if came to the conclusion that the petitioner was guilty of any misconduct. Having regard to the fact that he rendered 25 years of service before he removed from service, this Court is of the view that the reinstatement of the petitioner at the minimum of the pay scale and granting the benefit of continuity of service, limited for the purpose of calculating the retirement benefits, would meet the ends of justice. Petitioner has left over service three years only.

#6. Hence, the Writ Petition is allowed and the order dated 08-06-2005 passed by the 1st respondent, as confirmed in the I.D. No.226 of 2009 by the Labour Court – III, Hyderabad, is set aside. Petitioner shall be reinstated into service with minimum of the pay scale for the post of Driver and he shall be entitled for the benefit of continuity of service for the limited purpose of calculating the pensionary benefits. He shall not be entitled to either back wages or for any other relief. There shall be no order as to costs. __________________ L.NARASIMHA REDDY, J December 07, 2010 KTL