Reinstatement is not granted in cases of long-term unauthorized absence where the employee fails to prove compelling circumstances (e.g., chronic illness) with evidence, and where significant delay (laches) exists; however, the court may award monetary compensation based on previous service rendered.

ORDER:

This writ petition is filed challenging the Award dated 21.06.2013 passed by the Labour Court-I, Hyderabad (for short ‘the Labour Court’) in I.D.No.87 of 2011.

2. Brief facts of the case are as follows :-

(a) The 1st respondent was appointed as an Attender on 07.04.1992 in the petitioners’ organization. Thereafter, he was promoted to the post of Record Assistant on 23.07.1996. While so, the 1st respondent absented himself from duty from 06.04.2002 without any intimation to the petitioner authorities. The said fact was informed by the Divisional Manager, vide letter dated 15.04.2003, to the 1st petitioner herein, requesting to take appropriate action against the 1st respondent as per the Regulations.

(b) Thereafter, the 1st petitioner appointed an Enquiry Officer to conduct an enquiry. The Enquiry Officer sent a charge-sheet to the 1st respondent through RPAD on 11.06.2003; however, it was returned with the endorsement “addressee left”. Subsequently, a press notification was issued on 07.05.2004 in two daily newspapers, directing the 1st respondent to appear before the Enquiry Officer within 15 days to receive the charge-sheet, submit his explanation, and attend the oral enquiry. However, the 1st respondent did not respond to the said Notification.

(c) Thereafter, the Enquiry Officer conducted the enquiry and submitted his report on 17.08.2004, holding that the charge of unauthorized absence by the 1st respondent for a continuous period of more than one year stood proved. Thereafter, the disciplinary authority, i.e., the 1st petitioner, sent a show-cause notice dated 14.09.2004 to the 1st respondent through RPAD calling for his explanation, which was returned with the endorsement “not claimed”. Subsequently, the said show-cause notice was also published on 01.11.2004 in two daily newspapers.

(d) Thereafter, vide Memo dated 26.12.2005, the proposed punishment was communicated to the Concurrence Committee seeking approval for invoking Regulation 28(3) of the APSEB Service Regulations , since it is a major penalty. The 1st petitioner, after obtaining the Concurrence Committee’s approval, issued the final termination order vide Memo dated 24.01.2006 to the 1st respondent, confirming the punishment proposed in the show-cause notice. The same was sent to the 1st respondent by RPAD; however, it was returned with the endorsement ‘addressee left.’ In accordance with the Rules, the said final order was thereafter published in two daily newspapers.

(e) After a lapse of more than eight years, the 1st respondent filed I.D.No.87 of 2011 before the Labour Court seeking to set aside the termination order dated 24.01.2006. The Labour Court partly allowed the I.D. by Award dated 21.06.2013, directing the petitioners herein to reinstate the 1st respondent into service without continuity of service, without back wages, and without attendant benefits. However, it was directed that the past service of the 1st respondent shall be reckoned for the purpose of seniority and pensionary benefits, and the period of absence till reinstatement shall be treated as “not on duty.” Aggrieved by the said Award, the petitioners filed the present writ petition.

3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the Labour Court ought to have dismissed the claim petition filed by the 1st respondent on the ground of laches, since the 1st respondent did not approach the Labour Court within a reasonable time. The Labour Court failed to co