THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO WA No. 1315 of 2011 Between The Depot Manager, APSRTC v BVB Chary THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO WA No.1315 of 2011 Common order : ( Per Sri GM, J ) This Writ Appeal is preferred by the Corporation against the order of the learned single Judge passed in Writ Petition No.1955 of 2009. For the sake of convenience, the parties shall be referred to as arrayed in the Writ Petition. The petitioner got appointed as a Cleaner in the respondent-Corporation on daily wages on 28.8.1979 and his services were regularized on 1.1.1989. While so, on the ground that he is responsible for the missing of 1820 kgs of stores material, which amounts to misconduct as per the Regulation No.28(IX)(a) of A.P.S.R.T.C. Employees (Conduct) Regulations 1963, he was suspended by order dated 7.8.2002 and four charges were framed against him by proceedings dated 7.8.2002. The Enquiry Officer submitted report holding the petitioner guilty of the said charges and after calling for the explanation through a show cause notice, the petitioner was removed from service on 17.3.2003 and the subsequent appeal and review preferred by him ended in rejection. Aggrieved by the same, he raised I.D.No.52/2004 on the file of the Industrial Tribunal-cum- Labour Court at Warangal and by award dated 5.12.2004, the Tribunal held that the charges framed against the petitioner are not proved, and directed the respondent to reinstate the petitioner into service with continuity of service, but without backwages and other attendant benefits. Aggrieved by the denial of backwages, the petitioner filed the writ petition. The learned single Judge on adjudication of the matter held that the Tribunal has not recorded any reasons for denying backwages to the petitioner and that when once the charges against the petitioner are held to be not proved, denying backwages to the petitioner is not justified and therefore directed the Corporation to pay 50% of the backwages to the petitioner. Though the petitioner has averred that he was not employed anywhere from the date of termination till the date of reengagement, he has not specifically stated so, when he deposed before the Labour Court. In the normal circumstances, when the employee has not pleaded or proved that he was not reemployed anywhere, backwages have got to be denied proportionately. In the circumstances, ends of justice would be met by modifying the order of the learned single Judge directing the appellant-Corporation to pay 25% of the backwages instead of 50% of the backwages to the petitioner from the date of termination till the date of reinstatement. Subject to above direction, the writ appeal is partly allowed. No costs. GHULAM MOHAMMED, J NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO, J Date : 28-12-2011 Kk/ THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO WA No. 1315 of 2011 28-12-2011