APHC010606652011 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3457] THURSDAY, THE THIRTIETH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N WRIT PETITION NO: 20616/2011 Between: The Rural Development Trust,anantapur ...PETITIONER AND The Presiding Officer Anantapur Another and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. KARRI MURALI KRISHNA Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR LABOUR The Court made the following Order: The petitioner is challenging the award in I.D.No.18 of 2007, whereby the Labour Court, Anantapur, has directed the petitioner to reinstate the 2nd respondent into service with continuity of service and attendant benefits, but without back wages, on the principle of ‘No Work No Pay’. 2. The 2nd respondent was appointed as a health organizer in the year 1999 and was paid on a monthly basis. The charges of misappropriation 2 were levelled against the 2nd respondent, and a Charge Sheet dated 05.10.2006 was issued. An enquiry was conducted for the allegation of misappropriation of Rs.5,769/-. It is alleged that the 2nd respondent had collected the said amount from the general public and has not appropriated to the account of the petitioner. The same was deducted during the Audit, and as such, the Charge Sheet was issued. After the enquiry, the 2nd respondent was imposed the punishment of dismissal from service. 3. The Labour Court has considered the oral and documentary evidence and held that the punishment of removal from service was disproportionate to the charges framed. As such, the Labour Court has set aside the order of dismissal and directed the reinstatement of the 2nd respondent. 4. The notice issued to the 2nd respondent is returned unserved with an endorsement that ‘no such person’, and also there is no representation. 5. This Court, on 21.07.2011, granted a stay on the operation of the award in I.D.No.18 of 2007, dated 03.02.2011. No steps have been taken by the 2nd respondent to either appear before this Court or file a counter seeking the vacation of the interim order granted. 6. That apart, on 23.01.2025, the learned counsel for the petitioner requested this Court to ascertain the compliance of Section 17B of the 3 Industrial Disputes Act, and also to ascertain whether the 2nd respondent is in service. 7. On instructions, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has not approached the respondents and has submitted an affidavit stating that she is not elsewhere appointed or working for any gain and also submits that she was not in service thereafter. 8. Recording the same, this writ petition is allowed, and the award passed by the Labour Court, Anantapur, is upheld. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. ____________________ JUSTICE HARINATH.N 30.01.2025 PNS