ORDER :

This Writ Petition is filed by the petitioner seeking a Writ of Certiorari calling for the records in I.D.No.92 of 1998 dt.29.10.2001 on the file of the 1st respondent Additional Industrial Tribunal-cum-Additional Labour Court, Hyderabad and quash the same and consequently, allow the petition of the petitioner by directing the 2nd respondent management to reinstate the petitioner into service with full back wages, attendant benefits and other consequential reliefs.

2. Brief facts leading to this Writ Petition are that the petitioner was employed with the 2nd respondent company as an electrician on 09.01.1991 and was confirmed vide letter dt.09.01.1992. During the year 1997, a charge sheet was issued to the petitioner alleging that he had remained absent from duty without permission for 63 ½days during the year 1997. The petitioner submitted a detailed reply on 17.01.1998 explaining the reasons for his absence as the ill-health of his wife and that he had met with an accident. However, the disciplinary authority was not satisfied with the said explanation and therefore it ordered an enquiry and on the basis of the enquiry report holding that the charges against the petitioner are proved, a show-cause notice was issued to the petitioner as to why he should not be removed from service. The petitioner submitted his explanation, but the 2nd respondent was not satisfied with the same and termination order dt.08.03.1998 was passed. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner raised an industrial dispute before the Industrial Tribunal. The Industrial Tribunal, however, dismissed the said application, against which the present Writ Petition is filed.

3. The grounds raised in this Writ Petition are that the Industrial Tribunal has not taken into account the material evidence available on record, the admission of the management witness that all his leaves were on request treated as on loss of pay, which in itself is an indication of the petitioner having gone on leave with due intimation and therefore his absence cannot be treated as unauthorised. The other ground raised is that the respondents have failed to take into account the illness suffered by the petitioner's wife during the period in question, which was well within the knowledge of the management.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri V. Hari Haran, reiterated the submissions and submitted that a charge sheet was issued for unauthorised leave of 63½ days during the year 1997, but the respondents have taken into consideration the unauthorised leave for the earlier years also to award the punishment of removal from service. He submitted that the respondents could not have taken action on the unauthorised leave of earlier years without issuing a charge sheet to the petitioner to that period as well' Further' for the dis-proportionality of punishment of removable from service for the misconduct of unauthorised absence, he placed reliance upon a decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Shri Bhagwan Lal Arya Vs. Commissioner of Police Delhi and others, (2004) 4 SCC 560 and also in the case of Rashtrasant Tukdoji Maharaj Technical Education Sanstha, Nagpur Vs Prashant Manikrao Kubitkar, AIR 20l7 SC 2482. He also placed reliance upon a decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Krushnakant B. Parmar Vs. Union of India and another, 2012 (3) SCC 178 for payment of compensation in lieu of back wages.

5. Learned counsel for the 2nd respondent, Sri T. Rajendra Prasad on the other hand, submitted that the averments in the counter filed by the 2nd respondent may be considered' He submitted that though the petitioner has pleaded that his absence was due to the illness of his wife, he has not produced any evidence before the authorities below. Therefore, the punishment of dismissal from service was justified. He submitted that even in the earlier years, the petitioner remained absent from duty without any authorisation and therefore, the past record of the petiti