The High Court · 2025

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to suspend the operation of the award in lD No. 1312003 dt. 12-5-2006 on the file of the Labour Court, Warangal during the pendency of the writ petition. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI P.SATISH KUMAR, SC FOR TGSRTC Counsel for the Respondent No.1: SRI A.K.JAYAPRAKASH RAO Counsel for the Respondent No.2: GP FOR LABOUR The Court made the following: ORDER ,--< THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE PULLA KARTHIK WRIT PETITION No.22955 of 2006 ORDER: Assailing the award passed by the Industrial Tribunal-cum: Labour Court at Warangal (for short, 'the labour Court') datcd

02.05,2006 in I.D.No. 13 of 2OO3, the present Writ Petition n'as fiied.

2. The brief facts of the case are that respondent No.l, while working as a Driver in the petitioner Corporation, allegedly remained unauthorisedly absent to his duties from 12.O5.2O0O to 21.06.2O00. Thereafter, respondent No. 1 was directed to attend Medicat Check-up, wherein, he was found fit to attend to his duties. I{owever, instead of atte nding his duties, the petitioner remained absent to his duties and reported to duty onty on O 1. 1 I.2OOO, by producing a medical certificate dated 23.1O.2000. Later, on verification,jit wai:foun<l that respondent No.l tried to forge the fitness certificate to cgver up his, absenteeism. Therefore, he was issued with a charge sheet dated

13.O2.2OO1, alleging his unauthorized absenteeism, besides forgoing a false sick certificate. In response, respondent No. I submitted his explanation on 23.O2.2OO1. I{owever, dissatistied with the same, a departmental enquiry rvas conducted in conformity with the principles 2 PK, J W.P.No.22955 of 2006 of natural justice, wherein, the charge leveled against him was held proved. As such, a show-cause notice of removeil from service dated

22.O5.2OO2 was issued ,to respondent No. 1, but no explanation was reieived. Theiefore, based on the proven misconduct, respondent No. 1 was removed from service vide proceedings dated 15.06.2002. Respondent No.1 preferred an appeal before the Divisional Manager, Khammaln, which was rejected vide proceedings dated O5.12.2OO2. Therefore, respondent No. 1 approached the Labour Court and raised I.D.No.13 of 2003, which was allowed vide impugned award dated O2IQ5.20O6, .setting aside his remova,l order and the petitioner was diricted to reinstate him into service viith continuity of service ald other attendant bencfits, except back wages. Challenging the said avard, tJle petitioner Corporation frled the present writ petition.

3. Heard Sri P. Satish Kumar, learned Standing Counsel appearidg on behalf of the petitioner, and Sri A.K. Jayaprakash Rao, fearned counsel appearing for respondent No. 1..

4. Leq.rned Sfqnding Counsel for the petitioner contends that the Labour Court ought to have appreciated that there was ample: evidence before the enquiry oflicer to hold the charge leveled against 'rgpgpondent No. I as proved, and thus, the punishment of removal 3 ',pxl ,r. W.P.No.22955 of 2006' from service is just ald proper for the proven misconduct. It is also contended that the. Labour Court ought -to qavg.3-Pp,r€ciated.that :1 I)octor, who rvas examined, has categorically stated trrat;tltQ sgnature attesting the sick certif-rcate does not belong to him, which clearly discloses that the said certificate was forged by respondent No. 1. As such, the Labour Court ought not to have interfered with the lemoval order, by granting reinstatement with continuity of service and other attendant benefits. Therefore, learned Standing Counsel for the petitioner prays this Court to set aside the impugned aq,ard datcd

02.05.2006 passed by the Labour Court. I -' ,' .

5. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent No.l submits that the Labour Court, after appreciating the entire material on its reiord, observed that the hea-lth book of t1le petitioner, which is a concrete evidence to prove the cha-rge, was not produced and that only due to the improper maintenance of the records by the employees of the petitioner Corporation, the said health book of respondbnt No. 1 was lost, for which he cannot be put to suffer. Thus, the Labour Court has rightly held charge leveled against respondent No.1 as not proved and granted reinstatement with continuity of service and other attendant benefits, except, back wages. Therefore, it is prayed to dismiss the present writ petition. I ,- 4 PK, J W.P.No.22955 of 2O06 6: .' Having regard to the submissions made by learned counsel for the respective parties and upon perusal of record, it is clear that respondent No. 1 was charged with the allegation of submitting a false '' .: '- artd fabricated sick and fitness certificate, with the sole intention of deceiving the Corpbration, amounting to misconduct. The following is the extract of the charge leveled against him vide charge sheet dated

13.O2.200I : ' 1. For lnuing submitted fabe sick intimation ce.ftirt(nte dt.8- 12-2OOO and sick intimation certificate, fit certificate dt.17-1- 2OO1 as issued by the SMO, Tamakn Hospitol, Hgderobad and d.eeiued the Corporation, u.thich is misconduct under Reg.28 (x) (xxxi) (xxxii) of APSRTC Emplogees (Conduct) Req.1963."

7. A perusal of the impugned award dated O2.05.2OO6 in I.D.No. 13 of 2O03 discloses that the Labour Court, having elaborately discusse{ the prlcedure for issuance of a sick/frtness certifrcate at the petitioner Hospital at Tarnaka, opined that, 'trc is not qu)ore es to utho signed the sick and finess certificotes" and that "...there i.s no proof that the petitioner in conniuance Laith tLrc emplogees forged the certificates.'.; and thus, held 'the charge leveled against respondent No.1 as not proved. Further, as rightly pointed out by the Labour Court, the Health Book of respondent No. 1 is a crucial element to 5 PK, J W.P.No.22955 of 20O6 prove the charge, which was admittedly, not produced before the Labour Court by the petitioner Corporation. As such, the charge leveled against the petitioner was held as not proved, and consequently, the Labor Court granted reinstatement with cgntinuity

8. It is trite law that an award of a Labour Court can be interfered with, under the exclusive jurisdiction of this Court, in cases of gross violation of principles of natural justice or perversities apparent from. the face of the record. However, no such case has been made out by the petitioner warranting interference with the impugned award. Therefore, the present writ petition is devoid of merits and is liable to be dismissed. g. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed. Miscellaneous applications, if any, peniling in this writ petition, shall stand closed. No costs. \ //TRUE COPY// To, One CC to SRI P SATISH KUMAR' SC FOR TGS 1 C K.JAYAPRAKASH RAO, Ad FOR LABOUR, High Court for the State of Telangana at . JAWAHAR RED ISTANT R TION OFFIC ER UC] U

2. One CC to SRI A. 3. TwO CCS tO GP Hyderabad [OUT]

4. Two CD CoPies BSR BS w HIGH COURT DATED:0410812025 HES 1 o.J \f",,V [ 2 ii0 2026 z .f n * ORDER WP.No.22955 of 2006 DISMISSING THE WRIT PETITION, WITHOUT COSTS @- .Tx s nf ,f ze