HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA WRIT PETITION No. 45261 OF 2016

O R D E R:

Petitioners are wife and children of Sri P. Sathyanarayana – Driver in the State-owned Corporation who died while in service on 10-09-2008. They filed this Writ Petition challenging the Award dated 03.06.2016 in I.D.No. 119 of 2013 on the file of the 2nd respondent.

2. The case of petitioners is that the employee while working as Driver in the respondent Corporation was removed from service on 07-08-2007 on the charge of absenteeism for the period 27-11-2006 to 11-12-2006. Petitioners filed the mentioned Dispute challenging the removal of the deceased employee, but unfortunately, it was dismissed vide Award impugned. According to petitioners, the said absenteeism was for a short period that too due to ill-health. On the minor charge of absenteeism, removing the employee from service is unjust and unreasonable.

3. Though this Writ Petition was entertained on 23.12.2016 and despite giving several opportunities, respondent Corporation has not filed any counter.

4. Heard Sri P. Venkateswara Rao, learned counsel for petitioner.

5. Ms. Sai Mahitha, counsel representing Sri R. Anurag, learned Sanding Counsel for Corporation submits that employee is a chronic absentee, hence, he was removed from duty duly following the procedure contemplated under law, hence, petitioners are not entitled to any relief in this Writ Petition.

6. Admittedly, workman was removed from service on 07.08.2007 and he died on 10.09.2008; during the life time, he had not challenged the termination order. The case of petitioners is that the deceased employee, due to ill-health, was not in a position to attend duties, but they did not produce any piece of paper in the form of medical certificates to prove the same. On the other hand, learned Standing Counsel contends that the Enquiry Report shows that deceased workman is a chronic absentee and he absented from duties without applying any sort of leave.

7. Here, it is pertinent to see that petitioners filed the present Dispute against the removal order passed in 2007, in 2013, i.e. after six years of passing the termination order and five years of death of workman. The explanation put forward by petitioners for the said delay is that after the death of deceased, they approached the Corporation seeking compassionate appointment but the latter did not respond; therefore, on the advice of the staff that since workman was removed from

service, the family members are not entitled for compassionate appointment, they approached the Tribunal challenging the illegal removal of the deceased workman. The said ID was dismissed mainly on two grounds; one is delay in approaching the Court and another is petitioners had not produced any material in proof of deceased’s sickness. The submission of petitioners that they could not get all the sick certificates is far

from reality.

8. The Tribunal dismissed the Dispute also on the ground of limitation in filing the same. In this regard, it is the contention of learned counsel for petitioners that prior to 15.09.2010, there is no limitation for filing the Dispute, but Section 2A(3) came into existence with effect therefrom; as on the date of removal or date of death of workman, the Act is not in existence; further the said provision was repealed vide Act 23 of 2016 dated 09.05.2016, hence, the said provision cannot have retrospective effect. In this regard, he relied on the judgments reported in State of Punjab v. Anil Kumar, (2007) 9 SCC 663 Gurmail Singh v. Principal, Govt. College of Education, (2000) 9 SCC 496 Jasmer Singh v. State of Haryana3, Arrack Bottling Unit, Khammam v. Labor Court-Cum-Industrial Tribunal, Warangal, 2012 (1) ALD 220 (DB), P. Srinivas v. Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour

3 (2015) 4 SCC 458

Court, Warangal, 2012 (1) ALD 220 (DB), APSRTC, Mushirabad, Hyd. v.

Chandramouli6

9. This Court is not inclined to go into those aspects, for it is trite law that a writ Court generally should not interfere w