Telangana High Court
WP/4604/1999 of M.SHAIK AHMED Vs PO. LABOUR COURT-I HYD AND 2 ORS on 26 December 2008
COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE TWENTY SIXTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.4604 of 1999 Between: M.Shaik Ahmed, S/o.Shaik Hussain, Aged 42 years, R/o.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD(Special Original Jurisdiction)
FRIDAY, THE TWENTY SIXTH DAY OF DECEMBERTWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDYWRIT PETITION No.4604 of 1999
Between:
M.Shaik Ahmed, S/o.Shaik Hussain,Aged 42 years, R/o. Hyderabad.
AND
..... PETITIONERS
1. The Labour Court-I, Rep. By Presiding Officer,Chandravihar Buildings, HyderabadChandravihar Buildings, Hyderabad
2. The Divisional Electrical Engineer (Operation), Zone-I, APSEB, Mint Compound, Hyderabad.
3. The Superintendent Engineer (Operation),APSEB, City Circle, Mint Compound, Hyderabad.APSEB, City Circle, Mint Compound, Hyderabad.
.....RESPONDENTS
Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying thatin the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Courtwill be pleased to an order, direction or Writ more particularly one in thenature of Writ of Certiorari, and after calling for the records from the 1[st]Respondent in I.D.No.40/92 and quash the Award dated 05.10.1996 inso far confirming the oral termination passed by the 2[nd] Respondent andconsequently direct the Respondents to reinstate the Petitioner intoservice, with continuity of service, back-wages and all other attendantbenefits; and pass such other order or orders as deem fit and properunder the circumstances of the case.
Counsel for the Petitioner: NONE APPEARED
Counsel for the Respondent No.1: NONE APPEARED
Counsel for the Respondent Nos.2 & 3: Mr.P.R.BALARAMI REDDY
The Court made the following :
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
ORDER:
This writ petition is filed for a writ of Certiorari to quash awarddated 05.10.1996 in I.D.No.40 of 1992 on the file of respondent No.1,confirming the Memo dated 29.05.1987 passed by respondent No.2.
At the hearing, there is no representation for the petitioner.Heard Sri P.R.Balarami Reddy, learned Standing Counsel forrespondents 2 and 3 and perused the record.
The petitioner was appointed as Watchman on 10.10.1980 oncompassionate grounds in the office of respondent No.2. He wasabsent in three different spells, the details of which are as follows:“01.12.1981 to 26.11.1982 361 days 10.05.1983 to 10.10.1983 154 days 03.11.1983 to 04.06.1986 939 days”
The petitioner did not obtain any permission or got the leavesanctioned for 613 days out of the above mentioned period. Respondent No.2 vide his proceedings dated 21.06.1986 called forexplanation from the petitioner for his continuous unauthorized absenceand to show cause why he should not be treated as resigned underRegulation 28 (3) of the APSEB Service Regulations. The petitionersubmitted his explanation dated 04.07.1986, which was considered byrespondent No.2 and the impugned memo was issued declaring that thepetitioner is deemed to have resigned. Thereupon, the petitioner raisedIndustrial Dispute by way of I.D.No.40 of 1992 before respondent No.1. Pending the said I.D, the petitioner filed I.A.No.285 of 1992 for an interimdirection of reinstatement and the Labour Court granted such a direction,in pursuance of which, the petitioner was taken back into service.
Respondent No.1 held enquiry during which oral anddocumentary evidence was adduced by both the parties. After adetailed consideration of the evidence on record, the Labour Courtpassed the impugned order.
I have carefully gone through the reasons given in the impugnedaward. The Labour Court, after a proper analysis of evidence, concluded that the petitioner was unauthorisedly absent without leave orany valid reason. The Labour Court also referred to Regulation 28(3) ofAPSEB Service Regulations, which reads as under:
“Any employee of the Board who remained un-authorisedly absent from duty for a continuousperiod of one year shall be deemed to haveresigned from service from the date of absenceand shall automatically cease to be in BoardEmployment.”
On the over all consideration of the evidence and the abovementioned Regulation, the Labour Court upheld the order passed byrespondent No.2.
The learned counsel for the petitioner is not present to point outany illegality in the impugned award passed by the Labour Court. Inview of the same, I find no reason to interfere with the well consideredaward impugned in this writ petition.
The writ petition is accordingly dismissed.
Date: 26.12.2008va
C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J