The court emphasized that a delay in seeking relief under Article 226 without sufficient explanation is a ground for dismissal, limiting the High Court's re-evaluative powers in disciplinary matters.

1. This writ petition filed under Art.226 of the Constitution of India, challenges the award dated 30-08-2001 passed by the Labour Court - cum - Industrial Tribunal, Ananthapur in I.D. No. 161 of 1998 to the extent the same went against the petitioner.

2. Briefly stated the facts and circumstances leading to filing of the present writ petition are as under:

3. The petitioner was appointed as a Conductor in the respondent Road Transport Corporation in the year 1989 and he was terminated from service on 06-03-1997 followed by a departmental enquiry on the charge of un - authorized absence for the period from 24-03-1996 to 01-04-1996. After un - successfully availing the appellate and review remedies, the petitioner raised Industrial Dispute No. 161 of 1998 under S.2(A)2 of Industrial Disputes Act , 1947. The Labour Court, by way of an award, dated 30-08-2001, while setting aside the order of termination, directed re - instatement of the petitioner with continuity of service without back - wages and also directed deferment of four annual increments with cumulative effect.

4. In the above background, the present writ petition came to instituted. This Court ordered rule nisi on 16-03-2011.

5. Heard Sri. G. Ravi Mohan, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri. A. Rama Rao, learned Standing Counsel for the Road Transport Corporation, apart from perusing the material available before this Court.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner, reiterating the grounds raised in the writ affidavit, made the following submissions:
b. The award of the Honble 1st respondent in so far as further imposing punishment of of deferring annual increments for period of 4 years with cumulative effect is illegal and beyond the jurisdiction of Honble 1st respondent.
c. The Honble 1st respondent having come to the conclusion that the punishment imposed on the petitioner is disproportionate ought not to have imposed further punishment of of deferring annual increments for period of 4 years with cumulative effect.
d. The Honble 1st respondent failed to see that the petitioner has been explaining that due to piles disease he was unable to attend to his duties and he had no intention to avoid service. Inspite of requesting the 2nd respondent, they were not considered.
e. The Honble 1st respondent has come to the conclusion on the ground that the petitioner past record is bad. It is submitted that the finding of the Honble 1st respondent is nothing to do with the charge framed against the petitioner. It is not part of charge nor there is any pleading by the 2nd respondent nor there is any evidence to show that petitioner past record is bad. Therefore the finding of the Honble 1st respondent is improper.
f. The Honble 1st respondent has not assigned any reasons for denying attendant benefits and backwages and apart from that imposing punishment of deferring annual increments for period of 4 years with cumulative effect is illegal.
g. It is submitted that the Honble 1st respondent failed to see that the petitioner worked for more than 5 years without any increment in his pay through he is entitle.
h. It is submitted that the petitioners pay has not been fixed till date, though he was reinstated into service in the month of January 2002 on the ground that his Plaintiff case was not traced and the petitioner has not filed the writ petition with fond hope that his pay will be fixed by adding increments. It is submitted that thought he is entitled for fixation of pay in the year 2007, petitioner has waited till date. Hence there is a delay in filing this present w