APHC010744512013 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3457] WEDNESDAY,THE TWENTY SECOND DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N WRIT PETITION NO: 38833/2013 Between: 1. G.V. RAMANA,, S/O YERRAPPA, AGED 43 YEARS, WORKING AS DRIVER, E.NO.508058, A.P.S.R.T.C., KUPPAM DEPOT, CHITTOOR DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE ANDHRA PRADESH STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, LTD., REP. BY ITS REGIONAL MANAGER, TIRUPATI, CHITTOOR DISTRICT. 2. THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER A P S R T C CHITTOOR, - 3. THE DEPOT MANAGER A P S R T C PALAMANER DEPOT, PALAMANER, CHITTOOR DISTRICT. 4. THE DEPOT MANAGER A P S R T C KUPPAM DEPOT, KUPPAM, CHITTOOR DISTRICT. ...RESPONDENT(S): Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to Issue a Writ, Order or Direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the award published in gazette vide G.O.Rt.No.175 Labour Employment Training and Factories (Lab-I) Department dt.27-01-2011, passed in I.D.No.249 of 2007 dt.30-12-2010 by the Chairman-cum-Presiding Officer Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Anantapur in so far as it relates to denial of back wages and deferment of two 2 annual increments with cumulative effect are concerned, as highly illegal and arbitrary and set aside the same and consequently direct the respondents to grant back wages by treating the period of absent as medical leave and all other attendant benefits including the two annual increments in the interest of justice and pass IA NO: 1 OF 2013(WPMP 48268 OF 2013 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to expedite the hearing of the Writ Petition by fixing an early date in the interest of justice and pass Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. N M KRISHNAIAH Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. ARAVALA RAMA RAO(SC FOR APSRTC KKAC) The Court made the following: 3 Order:- The petitioner is aggrieved by the award passed by the Labour Court, Anantapur in I.D.No.249 of 2007, whereby the Labour Court, while directing the respondents to reinstate the petitioner into service with continuity of service and attendant benefits, but without back wages. The respondents were further directed to defer two (02) annual increments with cumulative effect after reinstatement of the petitioner into service. 2. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner joined the respondent-Corporation in the year 1989 as a driver and his services were regularized in the year 1991. It is submitted that the petitioner suffered paralysis to the right leg and was initially treated at A.P.S.R.T.C. dispensary at Chittoor, where the doctors advised him to get treated at S.V.R.R. Hospital, Tirupati. 3. It is submitted that the petitioner thereafter took herbal treatment and got recovered from paralysis. While things stood thus, the respondents issued show cause notice dated 04.10.2004 calling upon the petitioner to explain the unauthorized absence from duties for the period from 29.03.2004 to 06.09.2004. The petitioner has absented himself for a period of 371 days on various dates during the treatment period. Considering it as misconduct, an enquiry was conducted and the petitioner was imposed the punishment of removal from service. The appellate authority and revisional authority had also 4 rejected the claim of the petitioner. The petitioner thereafter filed I.D.No.249 of 2007 before the Labour Court, Anantapur, and the Labour Court had considered the issue on humanitarian grounds and directed the respondents to reinstate the petitioner. The petitioner is challenging the award to the extent of denial of back wages only and imposition of punishment of withholding of two (02) annual increments with cumulative effect. 4. The learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents submits that Regulation 11 of the Leave Regulations of the Corporation would mandate the employee to submit the application for leave along with the medical records and the certificate of the doctor, which could have been considered by the competent authority for grant of medical leave. In the present case, the petitioner has neither approached the competent authority seeking medical leave nor had submitted any application about his medical condition at that point of time. The record also does not indicate that the petitioner had submitted any leave application, as the same is also not filed before the Labour Court. The petitioner only submitted the medical certificate before the Labour Court. 5. Considering the submissions, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the award. However, considering the submission that the Labour Court has imposed the punishment of deferment of two (02) annual increments with cumulative effect, the same is hereby modified as deferring two (02) annual increments without cumulative effect. The rest of the award shall stand 5 confirmed. It is also made clear that the petitioner shall not be entitled for any monetary benefits for the past period. 6. With these observations, this Writ Petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. ____________________ JUSTICE HARINATH.N 22.04.2026 PNS