The petitioner challenged an award dismissing his industrial dispute involving removal for unauthorized absenteeism. The High Court found the Labour Court applied settled principles correctly and dismissed the writ petition for lack of jurisdictional error.
None. Writ Petition dismissed. No costs.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
THE HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G. ROHINI
WRIT PETITION No.17861 OF 2000
Dated: 03.03.2011
Between :
Md. Zamiruddin … Petitioner
And
1. The Labour Court, Hyderabad-III, Rep. by its Presiding Officer, Chandra Vihar Buildings, 1st Floor, M.J.Road, Hyderabad, And another. .. Respondents
THE HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G. ROHINI
WRIT PETITION No.17861 OF 2000
ORDER :
This writ petition is filed seeking a Writ of Certiorari to call for the Award dated 20.08.2009 in I.D.No.155 of 1994 on the file of the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court-III, Hyderabad, dated 20.08.1999 and to quash the same being arbitrary and illegal.
The writ petitioner joined the services of the A.P. State Road Transport Corporation as Driver on 16.6.1977. Alleging that the petitioner had absented himself from duty unauthorizedly from 2.1.1986, the Corporation issued a Charge-sheet, dated 29.03.1986. The charges included that the petitioner had absented from duties unauthorisedly, that his absence caused inconvenience to the Corporation and he had left the head-quarters without prior permission. The charge-sheet was returned undelivered with an endorsement ‘addressee left without instructions’. Thereafter a domestic enquiry was conducted by the Senior Traffic Inspector of the Depot and it was found that all the charges were established. On the basis of the same, regular proceedings were initiated against the writ petitioner. In spite of the diligent efforts by visiting the residence of the petitioner, the
petitioner was not available and he did not attend the enquiry. Ultimately a show-cause notice for removal was issued on the basis of the enquiry report and thereafter a final order of removal was passed. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner preferred I.D.No.155 of 1994 under Section 2-A(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. After hearing both the parties, the Labour Court recorded a finding that the domestic enquiry was validly held. So far as the merits of the case are concerned, no evidence was adduced on behalf of the petitioner to show that he had applied for leave and the same was sanctioned. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, it was held by the Labour Court that the petitioner’s plea that he was absent due to ill-health, cannot be believed in the absence of any medical certificate to establish the same. Accordingly I.D.No.155 of 1994 was dismissed by Award dated 20.08.1999. Challenging the said Award, the present writ petition has been filed.
Having heard the learned counsel for both parties, I do not find any justifiable reason to interfere with the impugned award which is in accordance with settled principles of law. The findings recorded by the Tribunal below are based on proper appreciation of the evidence available on record. Absolutely no case could be made out to show that the Award suffered from an error of jurisdiction or an error of fact or law apparent on the face of the record.
Hence, the interference by this Court in exercise of Certiorari jurisdiction is not warranted and accordingly the Writ Petition is dismissed. No costs.
_____________ G. ROHINI, J.
Dt. 03.03.2011 gbs
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the Labour Court erred in law or fact in dismissing the Industrial Dispute regarding the petitioner's removal from service.
Whether the High Court can issue a writ of certiorari to quash the Labour Court's award on merits.
Md. Zamiruddin
The Labour Court, Hyderabad-III
G. ROHINI
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
