IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTIETH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 21004 of 1999 Between: A.P.S.R.T.C., Rep by its Law Officer, Law Department, Mushirabad, Hyderabad. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Presiding Officer, Labour Court-I, Chandra Vihar, Hyderabad. 2 Sri B.Danial S/o Sri Syed Osman, R/o. 20/1/ Vidyanagar, Hyderabad. .....RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to issue a Writ, order or direction more particularly in the nature of Writ of Certiorari by calling for the record from the 1st respondent in I.D.No.113 of 1998 dt.1.3.99 Published in G.O.Rt.No.789, dt.1.85.1999 on the file of the Hon'ble Labour Court-I, Hyderabad ie., 1st respondent herein and quash the order. Counsel for the Petitioner :MR.K.MADHAVA REDDY Counsel for the Respondents: MR.A.K.JAYAPRAKASH RAO The Court made the following : HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 21004 of 1999 ORDER : This writ petition is filed by the Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation (APSRTC), questioning the Award dated 1st March 1999, passed by the Labour Court-I, Hyderabad in I.D.No.113 of 1998. 2. The 2nd respondent was appointed as a Driver in APSRTC, on 27th August 1987. On the ground that he was un-authorisedly absent from duty from 07.10.1996 to 20.11.1996, disciplinary proceedings were initiated against him. In the disciplinary proceedings, a charge to the following effect was framed against the 2nd respondent : “For his failure to attend to duties from 7-10-96 till date i.e. 20-11-1996 without any intimation or obtaining prior permission causing inconvenience to the office work which constitutes misconduct under Reg.28 (xxvii) of APSRTC Employees (Conduct) Reg.1963.” In the domestic inquiry, an Assistant Manager (Personnel) was appointed as inquiry officer to conduct the inquiry. After following the due procedure, the inquiry officer has submitted the inquiry report, holding that the 2nd respondent is guilty of the charge levelled against him. Based on the inquiry report, an order of removal was passed against respondent No.2. The said order of removal is challenged by way of an application filed under Section 2-A(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’), by the 2nd respondent. 3. Before the Labour Court, no oral evidence was adduced by either of the parties, but documents in Exs.M-1 to M-17 were marked on behalf of the Management. The Labour Court, in its Award, has held that the misconduct alleged against the 2nd respondent is proved, but however, by examining the quantum of punishment, it ordered for reinstatement of the 2nd respondent into service with continuity of service and attendant benefits, but however, he was denied back- wages. 4. In this writ petition, it is argued by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner-Corporation that having recorded a finding that the misconduct alleged against the 2nd respondent is proved, the Labour Court ought not have ordered for his reinstatement into service with continuity of service with attendant benefits. On the other hand, it is submitted by Sri A.K.Jayaprakash Rao, learned counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent that the punishment imposed is shockingly disproportionate to the gravity of charge, and therefore, the Labour Court, exercising its discretion under Section 11-A of the Act, ordered for modification of the punishment, as such, there are no grounds for interfering with the said finding. 5. Even from a perusal of the Award passed by the Tribunal, it is clear that the misconduct alleged against the 2nd respondent is proved. Though the Labour Court is empowered to impose lesser punishment than the punishment awarded by the disciplinary authority in exercise of powers under Section 11-A of the Act, but however, in this case, it is to be seen that no punishment is imposed on the delinquent employee. Mere denial of back-wages cannot be equated to the punishment. In view of the proven misconduct of the 2nd respondent, and also in view of the fact that he did not attend to his duties during the pendency of the proceedings, he is not entitled for the back- wages, but at the same time, inspite of the fact that the misconduct alleged against the 2nd respondent is proved, the Labour Court ought not have extended the attendant benefits while ordering reinstatement into service by giving the benefit of continuity of service. Awarding of attendant benefits amounts to giving the benefit of increments for the period of absence on misconduct, which is proved in the inquiry. Though in normal course it is a matter to be remitted back for fresh consideration, but however, to put quietus to the litigation, I deem it appropriate to modify the Award of the Labour Court to the following effect : The relief of reinstatement is confirmed with continuity of service, but however, it is declared that the 2nd respondent is not entitled for the benefit of increments for the period for which he was out of service, and at the same time, the Award of the Labour Court that he is not entitled for back-wages, is confirmed. 6. Asmuch as it is stated that the 2nd respondent is already reinstated into service, if his pay is to be re-fixed in the light of the directions issued by the Labour Court, it shall be re-fixed now in view of the directions referred above, by not extending the benefit of increments for the period for which he was out of service. However, it is made clear that the benefit of continuity of service shall be extended for all other purposes. 7. Writ petition is partly allowed, and the Award of the Labour Court is modified to the extent indicated above. No order as to costs. ______________________ R. SUBHASH REDDY, J 20th August 2008 ajr To The Presiding Officer, Labour Court-I, Chandra Vihar, Hyderabad.