THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA
AND
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A. RAJASHEKER REDDY
WRIT APPEAL No.470 of 2019
JUDGMENT: (Per the Hon'ble the Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma)
The present writ appeal is arising out of order dated
21.12.2018 passed in W.P.No.7740 of 2012 by the learned Single
Judge.
The facts of the case reveal that the appellant was working as
Junior Assistant. He was appointed on 07.08.1978. A charge sheet
was issued on 15.09.1998 as he was unauthorisedly absent from
29.09.1998. After holding a regular enquiry, as per the statutory
provisions governing the field, an order of removal was passed on
09.12.1998. The order was confirmed in an appeal by the appellate
authority and the order of removal was challenged before the
Labour Court by filing an application under Section 2A(2) of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 in 2009. Meaning thereby, after a
decade the order of removal was challenged before the Labour
Court. The Labour Court has set aside the order of removal
directing issuance of fresh appointment. Meaning thereby, he was
treated as fresh appointee by the Labour Court as there was a
delay of about 10 years in approaching it. Being aggrieved by the
award, a writ petition was preferred and the learned Single Judge
has dismissed the writ petition. Paragraphs 10 to 17 of the order
passed by the learned Single Judge reads as under:
2
"10. In granting the said relief, the fact that petitioner did not
attend the duty from 1999 till 2009 and had raised Industrial
Dispute in the year 2009 was taken into account and also the fact
that the petitioner was silent from 1999 till 2009 and did not show
any sufficiently good reason for not attending duties and not
raising the dispute immediately after he was removed from service
by the Depot Manager. The 4th respondent, however, directed the
A.P.S.R.T.C. to pay off the past service benefits to the petitioner from 1978 to 1998 and directed the Depot Manager to issue fresh appointment as Junior Assistant.
11. Assailing the same, the present Writ Petition is filed.
12. The counsel for petitioner stated that petitioner was subsequently given a fresh appointment as Junior Assistant on 26.12.2011, and the petitioner also retired from the said job on attaining the age of superannuation on 31.05.2012.
13. The counsel for petitioner contended that 4th respondent ought not to have denied reinstatement with continuity of service and backwages and that petitioner ought to have been granted the said benefits also.
14. I am unable to agree with the said contention for the reason that there is no material to show that the leave sought by petitioner were granted by the competent authority and also because no satisfactory reason is given why the petitioner, whose services were terminated on 09.12.1998, did not approach the 4th respondent will 2009, ten years later. This shows that the petitioner had no inclination to work from 1998 to 2009, and the respondents cannot be made liable for payment of backwages to him particularly when the finding of the 4th respondent that the charge is proved, is not liable to be interfered with.
15. For the aforesaid reasons, I am of the opinion that the 4th respondent was right in denying continuity of service and other consequential benefits also to petitioner.
16. I therefore do not find any merit in the Writ Petition and is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs.
17. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending if any in this Writ Petition, shall stand closed."
The employee in question did not seek recourse to the remedies available under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 for a period of 10 years. He was not able to point out as to why he was sleeping over the matter. In those circumstances, the learned Single Judge has not interfered with the award. The other facts reveal that the employee in question was given a fresh appointment on 26.12.2011, and he was also attained superannuation on 31.05.2012. This Court keeping in view the aforesaid does not find 3 any reason to interfere with the order passed by the learned Single Judge. The admission is declined.
The writ appeal is accordingly dismissed.
Miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. There shall be no order as to costs.
__________________________________ SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA, CJ ______________________________ A. RAJASHEKER REDDY, J 23.11.2021 ES