An order of termination of service without providing an opportunity to the employee to present their case violates the principles of natural justice and is illegal.

S. PARVATHA RAO, J, J.

( 1 ) THE petitioner questions the award of the Additional Industrial Tribunal-cum-Additional Labour Court at Hyderabad (the second respondent herein) in Industrial Disputes No. 802 of 1987, dated 31-5-1988 in so far as it is against the petitioner and seeks a direction of the first respondent i. e. , Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation to reinstate him with effect from 28-10-1970 without any break in service and to pay all back wages from that date till the date of reinstatement and also to give him the attendant benefits.

( 2 ) THE petitioner joined as a Driver in the first respondent corporation in the year 1970 and his services were regularised in the year 1971. He states that he could not attend to duty from 24-1-1980 due to illness and that he applied for leave which was initially granted. According to him the first respondent terminated his services with effect from 22-4-1980 by invoking Regulation 39 (3) of the Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation Employees (Leave) Regulations. He states that during the period of his absence from duty he was not gainfully employed and that his absence from duty was because of break down in his health due to renal failure. According to him, his illness was prolonged and during that period he was in his village only. After he regained his health he raised an industrial dispute under sub-section (2) of Section 2-A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the Act ) before the second respondent which was numbered as I. D. No. 802 of 1987. As per the award dated 31-5-1988 of the second respondent in the said industrial dispute the first respondent was directed to immediately reinstate the petitioner into service but only as a fresh Driver not later than a month from the date on which the management receives a written request from the petitioner seeking reinstatement. It is not in dispute that pursuant to the said award the petitioner was reinstated as per the said award. The petitioner is aggrieved that he was directed to be reinstated without continuity of service and without back wages and attendant benefits.

( 3 ) IN the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the first respondent it is stated that the petitioner was working only as temporary Driver in the first respondent corporation and that he was removed from service with effect from 22-4-1980 under the said Regulation 39 (3) on the ground of unauthorised absence. It is further stated that the petitioner sought for and obtained leave for ten days from 9-1-1980 to 18-1-1980 and that thereafter he remained absent without obtaining any further leave and that after seven years he reported in November, 1987. It is further stated that the contention of the petitioner that due to prolonged illness he had not reported to duty is not correct. It is stated that the telegram sent by the petitioner for extension of leave did not make any mention about his ill-health and that the petitioner was advised by a letter dated 6-2-1980 to report to duty. The petitioner did not report to duty or present himself to the Chief Medical Officer, A. P. S. R. T. C. Hospital or submitted any medical certificate as undergoing treatment. In the circumstances, the first respondent contends that the removal from service with effect from 22-4-1980 was valid and that the Labour Court rightly held that there was no justification at all for the absence of the petitioner. It is also submitted on behalf of the first respondent that there were laches on the part of the petitioner and that he did not care to report to duty for about seven years and that he approached for re-employment on 9-11-1987. It is also submitted that because of the considerable service put in by the petitioner as driver he was directed to be reinstated by the second respondent and the first respondent accepted the award and reinstated the petitioner as per the award. As the petitioner himself was responsible for his removal, it is cont

Click Here to Read the rest of this document