A SAMAD Vs. ANDHRA PRADESH ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Writ Appeal No. 163 of 1981. This writ appeal is preferred against the judgment of our learned brother, Jayachandra Reddy, J., dismissing the writ petition filed by the petitioner-appellant herein for the issue of a writ of certiorari and for quashing the order dated 21/10/1980 of the Depot Manager, Kamareddy Bus Depot of the Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation stating that the petitioner had lost his lien

(2.) The contention of the petitioner in the writ petition was that the provisions of Regulation 17 of the Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation Employees (Leave) Regulations, 1963 (hereinafter called Leave Regulations) are not applicable and that he petitioners services could not be terminated under the provisions of the aforesaid Regulation 17(2) and secondly that, if his services were sought to be terminated on the ground that he was absent without leave, that would amount to misconduct under Regulation 28 of the Andhra Pradesh State Road transport Corporation Employees (Conduct) Regulations, 1963 (hereinafter called "Conduct Regulations"), in which case he could be removed after holding an enquiry as required by Regulation 12 of the Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation Employees (Classification, Control and Appeal) Regulations, 1967, (hereinafter called Classification Control and Appeal, Regulations). A third contention was also urged that the termination of the petitioners service under Regulation 17(2) of the Leave Regulations would amount to retrenchment within the meaning of S. 2(oo) of the Industrial Disputes Act and that he could not be retrenched without complying with the provisions of S. 25F of the said Act.

(3.) The Chief Personnel Manager of the Corporation filed a counter-affidavit on behalf of the respondents stating that the allegation that the petitioner had applied for leave for two days on 13th and 14th of August, 1980 and that he obtained permission to leave the headquarters and left for Sircilla was not correct. In paragraph 5, it is stated that the leave record of the petitioner showed as follows :