Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
H. Mani vs The Chairman Cum Presiding Officer, on 11 November, 2024
APHC010204492014
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
AT AMARAVATI [3457]
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
MONDAY, THE ELEVENTH DAY OF NOVEMBER
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N
WRIT PETITION NO: 6047/2014
Between:
H. Mani ...PETITIONER
AND
The Chairman Cum Presiding Officer and Others ...RESPONDENT(S)
Counsel for the Petitioner:
1. P GOVINDA RAJULU
Counsel for the Respondent(S):
1. GP FOR LABOUR
2. ARAVALA RAMA RAO(SC FOR APSRTC KKAC)
The Court made the following Order:
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner.
2. The petitioner is challenging the award passed by the Labour Court in
I.D.No.164/2006 passed by the Labour Court, Anantapur to the extent of
denying his continuity of service only. The petitioner was initially appointed as
a driver in the year 1996. However, a charge sheet dated 26.11.1996 was
framed against the petitioner which alleged that the petitioner had submitted a
fake driving license and obtained a job.
3. An enquiry was conducted by respondent No.3, and proceedings dated
16.07.1997 were issued removing the petitioner from service. Aggrieved by
the same the petitioner approached the Labour Court and filed
ID.No.164/2006 which was allowed on 25.03.2008. The Labour Court directed
the petitioner to approach the respondents in terms of the circular dated
31.08.2008 within a period of two (02) months of publication of the award and
to submit a valid driving license subject to verification. The petitioner was
appointed as a fresh driver. It is made clear that the petitioner shall not be
entitled for any back wages.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was
reinstated in the month of October 2008. The petitioner would be entitled for
the earlier service on account of re-appointment and submits that the
petitioner is presently working as a driver however the past service is not
counted.
5. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the pleadings.
6. As seen from the award, the Labour Court has categorically given a
finding that the petitioner has submitted a non-genuine license and in the
enquiry it was found that the driving license furnished by the petitioner was not
issued by the R.T.O, Madras (West). It is also stated that no evidence was
produced by the petitioner to support his contention that his driving license
was genuine. The Labour Court has followed the Judgments of the Division
Bench of this Court in W.A.No.1157 of 2005, and batch and had extended the
benefit of the circular dated 31.08.2008 and directed the respondents to
re-engage the petitioner, subject to the petitioner submitting his driving license
which would be subject to verification.
7. Admittedly, the petitioner submitted the fake driving license and
obtained the job, and enquiry was conducted, and accordingly, his services
were terminated. In the batch of Writ Appeals, this Court directed the
respondents to extend the benefit of the circular dated 31.08.2008 has
attended finality in such cases the past service of the driver was not
considered.
8. Accordingly, this Writ Petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as
to costs.
As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.
____________________
JUSTICE HARINATH.N
11.11.2024
PNS
