1 APHC010331812018 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3396] FRIDAY, THE TWENTY FIRST DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA WRIT PETITION NO: 15280/2018 Between: The Depot Manager and Others ...PETITIONER(S) AND P Nazeer Khan and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner(S): 1. ARAVALA RAMA RAO(SC FOR APSRTC KKAC) Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR LABOUR (AP) 2. The Court made the following: ORDER: This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India with the following prayer: “…..to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Certiorari, calling for records relating to the award made in I.D.No.68 of 2013, dated 12.12.2014 on the file of the Labour Court, Anantapur, which was published in the Gazette vide G.O.Rt.No.147, dated 08.04.2015, as illegal, arbitrary and quash the same and pass such other order or orders…...” 2 2. Heard Sri Aravala Rama Rao, learned Standing Counsel for the petitioners and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Labour, appearing for the 2nd respondent. 3. Learned Standing Counsel for the petitioners would submit that the workman by name Sri P.Nazeer Khan, worked as Conductor of Madanapalli-2 Depot. During his service, he has filed nomination for contesting as Member of Legislative Assembly General Elections, 2009 of Thamballapalli Constituency, which is contrary to the rules of the APSRTC, as such, action has been initiated against him and the respondent authorities issued final orders of removal from service vide proceedings dated 26.10.2009. The workman preferred appeal and the same was rejected vide proceedings dated 06.02.2010. Thereafter, he has preferred review petition before the Regional Manager, Tirupati and the same was also rejected vide proceedings dated 17.04.2010. Aggrieved thereby, the 1st respondent has approached the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Anantapuramu and filed I.D.No.68 of 2013, wherein the learned Labour Court has set aside the punishment imposed by the 1st petitioner, which is against to the facts of the case. Learned Standing Counsel finally prays to quash the order dated 12.12.2014 passed in I.D.No.68 of 2013. 3 4. Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Labour, appearing for the 2nd respondent would submit that the learned Presiding Officer of the learned Labour Court has rightly appreciated the material on record. Learned Assistant Government Pleader would further submit that whatever the alleged nomination in elections is only the interest of the workman to serve the public and it is not with any ill intention. Learned counsel would further submit that the learned Presiding Officer of the Labour Court has rightly exercised its discretion and turned the punishment and passed award. Hence, prays for dismissal of the writ petition. 5. Considering the submissions made and a fair look at the award passed by the Labour Court, as rightly put by the learned counsel for the 2nd respondent, the Presiding Officer of the Labour Court has rightly appreciated the matter on record since it is observed in the award that the workman had participated in the elections during the period of his medical leave. Learned Labour Court further observed that when the workman submitted his resignation with a view to participate in the general elections, he was informed by the APSRTC authorities that until his loans are cleared, his resignation will not be accepted, as such, the workman took the plea of ill-health. Learned Labour Court opined that the workman who had participated in the elections without his resignation and had taken the plea of ill-health for his absence is at fault, likewise non-acceptance of the resignation of the workman on the ground of pendency of loan by the APSRTC is also at fault. Thus, the learned 4 Labour Court had set aside the punishment of removal from service imposed against the employee and directed reinstatement of the workman into service and modified the punishment to that of reduction of the basic pay of the workman by two incremental stages for a period of two years with cumulative effect besides treating the period of as not on duty for the purpose of leave, wages and increments. So, there are no grounds to interfere in the award passed by the learned Labour Court. 6. In that view, the Writ Petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. _________________________________________ Dr. JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA Date: 21.03.2025 ARR 5 291 THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA WRIT PETITION NO: 15280/2018 Dt.21.03.2025 ARR