CH. BUCHI BABU Vs. CHAIRMAN CUM PRESIDING OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Writ Petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a Writ of Certiorari calling for records in I.D.No.50 of 2002 dt.02.04.2008 on the file of the Additional Industrial Tribunal-cum-Additional Labour Court, Hyderabad and to quash the award in so far as not granting reinstatement into service with continuity of service and pass such other order or orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the interest of justice.

(2.) Brief facts leading to the filing of this Writ Petition are that the petitioner joined the service of the 2nd respondent organization as a Junior Stenographer on 25.10.1977 and discharged his duties as such. It is stated that in December, 1996, the petitioner became mentally depressed due to domestic problems and in such mental depression, he left home voluntarily without his knowledge in the first week of January, 1997 and was wandering here and there without any sense. Since the wife of the petitioner could not trace out his whereabouts, she had given a police complaint on 02.10.1997 vide FIR No.186 of 1997 and ultimately after 4 1/2 years, one unknown person had admitted the petitioner at Chennai hospital, where, after a week of treatment, the petitioner could recollect his lost memory and told the hospital authorities about his residential address in Hyderabad. Thereafter, he was shifted to Hyderabad. It is submitted that even at Hyderabad, he had taken treatment at Dr. S.S.R. Murthy who is a Consultant in Neuro Surgeon and after taking treatment like Physiotherapy and other Allopathy treatment, he recovered from illness and he was given a medical certificate stating that he is fit to attend to duties. Thereafter, the petitioner made a representation to the 2nd respondent to allow him to join his duties and it was then he came to know that the 2nd respondent had conducted ex parte enquiry and ultimately removed him from service basing on the charge sheet dt.19.08.1997 and also the ex parte enquiry report. It is submitted that even the petitioner's wife, after noticing the paper publication regarding the enquiry, had made a representation to the authorities that he had left the house without any information to her and requested the authorities to postpone the enquiry and again on 01.10.1997 she requested the authorities not to take any action pursuant to the disciplinary proceedings, but without considering the same, the petitioner was removed from service. When the petitioner came to know about his removal from service, he made a representation dt.03.09.2001 and further representations requesting the 2nd respondent to allow him to perform his duties by duly setting aside removal order dt.07.01.1987. Since the 2nd respondent did not accede to the petitioner's request, he raised an industrial dispute vide I.D.No.50 of 2002 before the Additional Industrial Tribunal-cum-Additional Labour Court, Hyderabad. The Labour Court held that the enquiry held by the 2nd respondent against the petitioner is illegal and arbitrary on the ground that no opportunity is given to the petitioner. Accordingly, the removal order vide award dt.09.09.2004 was set aside. The respondents filed W.P.No.18849 of 2004 before this Hon'ble Court and the Writ Petition was disposed of vide order dt.03.01.2007 duly setting aside the order dt.09.09.2004 and directed the 1st respondent to reconsider the matter afresh. The Labour Court after hearing both sides and examining the witnesses, held that the enquiry made by the 2nd respondent is vitiated. However, the Labour Court relying on the evidence of M.W.1 passed award in I.D.No.50 of 2002 dt.02.04.2008 dismissing the petitioner's application with a direction to the 2nd respondent to pay a lump sum compensation of Rs.10,000/- and to settle the terminal benefits, if not settled. Challenging the said award of the Labour Court, the present Writ Petition is filed.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner, Smt. K.Udaya Sri, submitted that the petitioner had left his home in mental depression and thereafter, he had met with an accident and it was only in the month of February, 2001 that he was admitted into a hospital at Chennai and he recovered after treatment and thereafter only, he could approach the authorities and therefore, the ex parte enquiry conducted against the petitioner fully knowing well that the petitioner was not traceable was illegal and arbitrary. She submitted that the petitioner's ill-health and the medical certificate to prove the same should have been considered by the Labour Court to set aside the removal order and the Labour Court should have granted reinstatement of the petitioner with all attendant benefits. In support of her contention that lenient view should be taken and the punishment of dismissal was improper, the learned counsel placed reliance upon a decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Bhagwan Lal Arya Vs. Commissioner of Police, Delhi and another; AIR 2004 SC 2131.