HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT PETITION No. 1354 OF 2004 DATED 1ST FEBRUARY, 2010. BETWEEN B.Satyanarayana …Petitioners And The Hon’ble Labour Court-I, Hyderabad, rep. By its Presiding Officer ….Respondents. HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT PETITION No. 1354 OF 2004 ORDER: The petitioner in I.D.No. 524 of 1988 on the ﬁle of the Labour Court-1, Hyderabad, challenges the Award dated 12.3.1996 passed therein to the extent it denied him continuity of service, back-wages and attendant benefits. The petitioner was appointed as a Conductor in the Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation (APSRTC) in the year 1972. He was placed under suspension by order dated 13.9.1975 owing to his involvement in criminal proceedings initiated against him under SectionS 353 and 204 of the Indian Penal Code. The petitioner was terminated from service on the same ground on 23.1.1976. It is not in dispute that the criminal proceedings initiated against the petitioner culminated in his conviction, which was conﬁrmed in appeal and thereafter in revision. However, the petitioner carried the matter by way of an appeal before the Supreme Court of India. The appeal was partly allowed by order dated 23.1.1987, wherein the Supreme Court observed that as the incident pertained to the year 1975 and as the petitioner stood the risk of losing his job, it was a ﬁt case to give him the beneﬁt under the Probation of Oﬀenders Act, 1958, upon his furnishing a bond to maintain good behaviour for one year along with a surety to the satisfaction of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Chennur. Taking advantage of this observation of the Supreme Court, the petitioner ﬁled the subject I.D. before the Labour Court. By Award dated 30.1.1992, the I.D. was dismissed in the ﬁrst instance conﬁrming the order of termination of the petitioner from service. The dismissal of the I.D. was mainly on the ground of delay on the part of the petitioner. Aggrieved thereby, he approached this Court by way of Writ Petition 11492 of 1992, which was allowed by order dated 6.12.1995 remanding the matter for fresh enquiry by the Labour Court, duly taking into consideration the observations made by the Supreme Court in its order dated 23.1.1987. It is on the basis of this exercise that the subject Award dated 12.3.1996 came to be passed by the Labour Court, directing the APSRTC to give appointment to the petitioner as a fresh Conductor without back-wages, continuity of service and other attendant beneﬁts. The petitioner being aggrieved by the denial of such reliefs filed the present Writ Petition. The afore-stated facts clearly establish that the conviction of the petitioner which was conﬁrmed in revision by this Court was not set aside. The Supreme Court extended to the petitioner the beneﬁt of the Probation of Oﬀenders Act, 1958, keeping in mind the fact that he would lose his job as a Conductor. Therefore, the action of the APSRTC in terminating the petitioner’s services by its order dated 23.1.1976 on the ground of his involvement in the criminal case cannot be said to be irregular or invalid. The fact also remains that the petitioner did not choose to challenge his termination till the year 1988 and it was only basing on the observations of the Supreme Court in its order dated 23.1. 1987 that he sought redressal of this grievance. By virtue of Section 12 of the Probation of Oﬀenders Act, 1958, the disqualiﬁcation attaching to the petitioner’s conviction is nulliﬁed as he was given the beneﬁt under Sections 3 and 4 of the Act under the Supreme Court’s order dated 23.1.1987. In such circumstances, the Award of the Labour Court directing fresh appointment of the petitioner as a Conductor is in tune with the observations of the Supreme Court in its order dated 23.1.1987, as the petitioner’s job has been safeguarded. As he remained out of service through out, it would neither be just nor proper to grant him back-wages or continuity of service. The Award of the Labour Court is therefore found to be lawful and valid in all respects and does not warrant interference by this Court. The Writ Petition is devoid of merit and is accordingly dismissed. No costs. -------------------------------- ---- JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DATED 1ST FEBRUARY, 2010. Msnr.