G. Balaraju v. 1. The Managing Director

circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue an order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of "certiorari" by calling for the records relating to and in connection with the award of the LabourCourt-lll, passed in l D No. 11912003 dt.14-11-2005, which was published in the Gazette vide GORT No. 183 dt.25-1-2006, in denying past service benefits and the wages for the period out of employment by ordering Fresh appointment as unjust and illegal, contrary to well established principles of law, and as such quash the award by consequently direct the Respondents herein to reinstate the petitioner and to pay the wages for le out of employment period forthwith along with all benefits. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI S. M. SUBHAN counsel for the Respondents No.1 to 3: STANDING coulll iEL FoR TSCPDCL Counsel forthe Respondent No.4: GP FORLABOUR The Court made the following: ORDER THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO WRIT PETITION No.19269 of2()O6 ORDER: The present Writ Petition is ltled to the following relief: "...to issue an order or direction more partia arlg one in the noture of tttit of "certiorari" bg calling for the reards relating to and in connection utith the auord of the Lobor C-ourt-II, possed in L.D.No:119/ 2OO3 dt- 14-11-20O5, which utos pubti.sled in the Ga.zette uide GORT No 183 dt.25.O1.2OO6, in denging past seruice benefi.ts and the utages for tLe period out of employment by ordeing Fresh appointm.ent as unjust and illegal, controru to uell establisled principles of ktto, and as such quosh the anaord bg ansequentlg direct the Respondents herein to reinstate tLrc petitioner and to pay the tuages for the out of emplogment peiod forthwith along with rtll benefits and to po.ss...." c a Heard both sides and perused the material. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the due sudden demise of petitioner's father, petitioner was appointed as a Lineman, on compassionate grounds in the erstwhile APSEB now narned as Central Pou'er Distribution Compaly of A.P. Ltd., in the Year 199 1 and petitioner put in unblemished record of service in the Corporation. While the petitioner was working at Kondapur Sub Station, it was alleged against the petitioner that he u,as absented for duties. 2

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner further ;ubmits that on 01.08.1995, the petitioner applied leave fot 1O days and though it was accepted by the concerned, but tr ' treating the sarne as absence, a chargesheet was issued arl enquiry, a Show Cause notice was issued' \\ any reasonable opportunity, punishment was ill 1 followed by ithout giving posed on the petitioner, deeming to be resigned from servic: under Leave Reg. 15(a) of AP.S,E,B., which is unjust and arr trary.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner furthe r submits that due to ill-health, petitioner applied leave for vvhen he attended for duties, the concerned l0 days and ailed to allot duties to the petitioner by stating that the Su1 ervisor asked the petitioner to meet him in the office. Wheri the petitioner approached him, he was not available and for a period of 5 days, the petitioner was made to run to the respondents, but the petitioner was not z l off-rce of the otted duties. Ultimatet.v, the petitioner received the purrr: hment o rde r, dated 01.09.1998, on 05.04.1999.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner furthtr the petitioner u'as shocked to know that h': submits that u.as imposed rvith the punishment of deemed to have beerL resigned from service on the allegation of unauthorized abr; 'nce, rr,hich is ., unjust and arbitrary and the Appellate Authority conlirmed the punishment ordenride orders, dated 30.O6'2003 7 . Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that due to petitioner's ill-health and as the doctors advised him to take bed rest, he applied leave and the same was accepted by the depot concerned and as the extension for sick leave '*.as not reached within time, the Superintendent complained to the D.E and the D.E without even looking into the complaint, arbitrarily ordered to issue show cause notice, u'hich is unjust.

8. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the petitioner having aggrieved by the punishment, raised industriat dispute in ID No. ll9/2OO3 before the Labor Court-lll, Hyderabad, and the learned presiding officer passed award by ordering Fresh Appointment, without considering the punishment imposed u/s 11 A ol ID ACT, r.r.hich is unjust and unsustainable, and as such, the impugned award of the Labor court is liable to be interfered bv this Hon'ble court. g. Learned counsel for the petitioner lastlv informed this Court that nothing survives in this Writ Petition. 4

10. Learned counsel for the respondents di,l not dispute the submissions made by the learned cor t rsel for the petitioner. 1 1 . In the said circumstances, this Co trt, without expressing an-v opinion on the merits of the cas:, directs the the petitioner to submit a representation to t I : respondent authorities, if any retirement benehts are due t I him, within a period of two (O2) weeks from the date of re,::ipt of a copy of this order. On such representation being made by the petitioner, the respondent authorities ar( directed to consider the same and pass appropriate orders, in accordance rr.ith lart', u,ithin a period of eigl t (08) u'eeks therefro m.

12. With thc abovc direction, this Writ Petitjt n is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous applications, if any penii rg, shall also stand closecl. SE/ K.BHAVANI SWAMY ASSI ;TANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To, 1 The lvlanaging Director, Central Power Distribution O rmpany Ltd'' Redhills' Hyderabad-4. Engineer (Operation), C.P.D ( .L., [vlahaboobnagar 2. The SuPerintending Mahaboobnagar Dist 3 The Divisional Engineer Electrical (Operation), T S (; I D C'L ' Wanaparthy i r-u.-h^^hn2^ar Tlist P]0

4. The Presiding Officer, Labour Court-lll, Hyderabad. 5. One CC to SRI S. M. SUBHAN, Advocate [OPUC] 6. One CC to Standing Counsel for TSCPDCL IOPUC] 7. Two CCs to GP for Labour, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad. [OUT]

8. Two CD Copies MP GJP cl+k I HIGH GOURT DAI'I=-D:2810812025 o3 irtr ( Y L u .) .J L 9 'v * I Sqr J'. . rq-).... : ---' ORDER WP.Nc, 19269 of 2006 DISPOSING OF THE V\ RIT PETITION WI't HOUT COSTS \ tl-