This writ petition has been filed seeking direction in the nature of Certiorari, calling for the records in I.D.No.207 of 1993, dated 29.04.1997 from the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Warangal and to quash that portion of the award, wherein the Labour Court directed the respondents to reinstate the petitioner into service as fresh recruitee as a Driver, without continuity of service, back wages and all other attendant benefits. The brief facts of the case are as follows:

The petitioner was appointed as Driver in A.P.S.R.T.C., Madhira Depot in 1979. According to him, he fell sick on 03.08.1991 to 29.08.1991 and subsequently, from 02.11.1991 to 12.11.1991. He was admitted in Government Hospital, Madhira and had taken treatment for Hypertension and heart problem. It is the case of the petitioner that he had sent medical certificate to the office of the first respondent i.e., Depot Manager, A.P.S.R.T.C., Madhira, through his neighbor and when he reported to duty with fitness certificate, on 30.08.1991, he came to know that his neighbor had not informed about his sickness to the first respondent. Though the first respondent allowed him to duty, issued charge sheet, dated 29.08.1991, alleging that the petitioner was un-authorisedly absent from 03.08.1991 to 29.08.1991 without intimation or prior sanction of leave, which is a misconduct as per the regulations of A.P.S.R.T.C.

The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he was admitted in the hospital and had taken treatment for hypertension and heart disease and that though he had sent intimation through his neighbor, his neighbor did not intimate the first respondent. Subsequently, another charge sheet was issued alleging that the petitioner was absent to duty from 02.11.1991 to 12.11.1991 and the petitioner submitted his explanation along with the medical certificate issued by the Medical Officers, showing that he was suffering from Jaundice during that period. Departmental enquiry was conducted and according to the petitioner, the Enquiry Officer has not conducted an enquiry with reference to the second charge for the absence from 02.11.1991 to 12.11.19991 and that the Enquiry Officer without considering the explanation submitted by the petitioner, held that the charges are proved. It is also submitted that the first respondent without considering his explanation, passed orders removing the petitioner from service. Then he filed I.D.No.207 of 1993 and that the Industrial Tribunal, Warangal, by impugned orders held that the petitioner was un-authorisedly absent; that the domestic enquiry was not initiated and that the charges have been proved. However, passed orders under Section 11-A of the Industrial Disputes Act and directed the first respondent to reinstate the petitioner into service as a fresh candidate as Driver without continuity of service and attendant benefits.

The main contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the Labour Court ought to have considered that the Enquiry Officer did not give any opportunity to the petitioner to lead evidence and that no documents were marked and no witness has been examined on behalf of the first respondent to prove the charges and that the burden was shifted to the petitioner to disprove the charges before the Labour Court.

The only point that arises for consideration is whether the impugned order is just and reasonable and whether the departmental enquiry was conducted following the principles of natural justice and whether the charges have been proved against the petitioner.

As seen from the contents of the award passed by the Industrial Tribunal, the respondent had taken a plea that the petitioner was un-authorisedly absent to duty from 03.08.1991 to 29.08.1991 and that he had produced sick and fitness certificates and reported to duty on 30.08.1991. It is also the case of the respondent that reasonable opportunity was given to the petitioner by the Enquiry Officer and since the misconduc