APHC010535562006 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3545] MONDAY,THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE BATTU DEVANAND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A. HARI HARANADHA SARMA WRIT APPEAL NO: 1173/2006 Writ Appeal under clause 15 of the Letters Patent Appeal against the order passed in WP No. 16104/2000 dated 2-1-2006 passed by his Lordship, Mr. Justice N.V. Ramana for the following among other Between: 1. THE DEPOT MANAGER, DHARMAVARAM, DHARMAVARAM DEPOT, DHARMAVARAM. ...APPELLANT AND 1. B LAKSHMINARAYANAMMA ANANTHAPUR DISTRICT 3 OTHERS, W/O NARASIMHULU NAGASAMUDRAM VIA. CHENNAKOTHAPALLI, ANANTAPUR DIST. 2. B HEMALATHA MINOR, REP. BY MOTHER B. LAKSHMINARAYANAMMA. 3. P MADHU PRASAD MINOR, REP. BY MOTHER B. LAKSHMINARAYANAMMA. 4. THE CHAIRMANCUMPRESIDING OFFICER INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL, -CUM-LABOUR COURT, ANANTAPUR. ...RESPONDENT(S): IA NO: 1 OF 2006(WAMP 2440 OF 2006 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 suspend the operation of order in WP NO. 16104 of 2000, dated 02-1-2006 pending disposal of the above Writ Appeal IA NO: 2 OF 2006(WAMP 101681 OF 2006 2 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 Counsel for the Appellant: 1. K VISWANATHAM (SC FOR APSRTC) Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR LABOUR 2. N ASWARTHA NARAYANA The Court made the following: 3 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE BATTU DEVANAND & THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A. HARI HARANADHA SARMA WRIT APPEAL No.1173 of 2006 JUDGMENT: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice A. Hari Haranadha Sarma) This Writ Appeal is directed against the order dated 02.01.2006 made in W.P.No.16104 of 2000. 2. The respondents are the legal representatives of an employee of the appellant-Corporation namely B.Narasimhulu. Against the charge of being unauthorizedly absent from 28.02.1990 to 01.03.1990 and 19.03.1990, the appellant/writ petitioner has taken action of removing said employee from service under orders dated 26.07.1990. The employee has raised an industrial dispute in I.D.No.136 of 1996 before the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Anantapur, invoking the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The said Court passed an order in favour of the employee on 16.02.2000. The employee died during the pendency of the Industrial Disputes proceedings and the legal representatives were impleaded. Questioning the orders of the Industrial Tribunal, W.P.No.16104 of 2000 was filed. 3. During hearing of writ petition, the learned Single Judge of this Court, under the impugned orders and on the consensus of both sides, modified the order of the labour Court to that of granting 50% back wages. Questioning the same, the present writ appeal is filed. 4 4. The grounds urged in the appeal are that the learned Single Judge ought to have seen that the unauthorized absence was not seriously disputed and that there was a delay of five (05) years in approaching the Industrial Tribunal by the workman. On the ground of the delay as well as the admitted absence, the writ petition ought to have been allowed. Learned counsel for the employee would submit that the punishment is quite disproportionate and the labour Court has considered all aspects including the merit in the charges framed. Therefore, there are no grounds either in the writ petition or in the writ appeal. 5. Point for consideration:- “i. Whether reducing the back wages to 50% of what has been awarded by the labour Court under the impugned orders in the writ petition, require any interference? ii. What is the result of the appeal?” 6. The orders are very clear that the modification orders are passed on consent and consensus of both sides in the presence of both the counsel. Therefore, the objections taken in this appeal that there are laches, etc., do not deserve any consideration. Even from the factual perspective also, it is observed in the order that the extension leave was sought on health grounds and that absence was not wanton. Looking from any angle, no grounds are found to interfere with the orders passed by the learned Single Judge, where by the appeal fails and the Point No.i is answered accordingly. 5 7. In view of findings in Point No.i, the Writ Appeal is liable to be dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. __________________________ JUSTICE BATTU DEVANAND __________________________________ JUSTICE A. HARI HARANADHA SARMA Date: 17.11.2025 SCS 6 40 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE BATTU DEVANAND & THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A. HARI HARANADHA SARMA WRIT APPEAL No.1173 of 2006 Dt.17-11-2025 SCS