IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE FIRST DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND FOUR PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B.PRAKASH RAO WRIT PETITION NO : 5770 of 1996 Between: M.Sudershan S/o. M.Samariah 1-116 Gurramguda Post: Vinjapur Hyderabad-500 661 ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Addl.Industrial Tribunal-Cum-Addl.Labour Court Chandra vihar Hyderabad 2 The Depot Manager A.P.S.R..T.C Ranigunj Depot -I Secunderabad .....RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court may be pleased to pass an order or issue a writ particularly one in the nature of Certiorari and quash the Award dt: 22/6/1995 in I.D.NO.477/93 after calling for the records on the File of the Addl. Industrial Tribunal-Cum-Addl. Labour Court, Hyderabad to the extent of not allowing the back wages to the petitioner and consequently to direct the respondent management to pay all the back wages to the petitioner right from the date of removal to the date of reinstatement. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.B.G.RAVINDER REDDY Counsel for the Respondent No.1: GP FOR LABOUR Counsel for the Respondent No.2: MR.P.VINAYAKA SWAMY The Court made the following: ORDER: Heard both sides. The petitioner, who is working as a driver in the second respondent Depot, files this writ petition, inter alia, seeking a writ of Mandamus challenging the award passed in I.D.No.477 of 1993, dated 22.06.1995, by the Additional Industrial Tribunal-cum-Additional Labour Court, Hyderabad, to the extent of denying back wages while ordering reinstatement. The facts in brief which are necessary for disposal of this writ petition are that the petitioner having been appointed as a Driver as long back as in the year 1985, working with the respondent Corporation without any complaints. While so, the respondents have issued a charge sheet dated 25.07.1990 on two grounds, namely, he was absent for four days and also availed 82 days leave. After domestic enquiry, the petitioner was removed from service. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner raised an industrial dispute under Section 2-A (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act and the same was referred to the first respondent and the first respondent has taken up the same on file as I.D.No.477 of 1993. After holding that the domestic enquiry was vitiated, an enquiry was taken up before the first respondent, during which, one witness each was examined and marked documents for both sides in Exs.W1 to W6, and Exs.M1 to M10. On consideration thereof, the first respondent held that the punishment is quite disproportionate to the gravity of the allegation made against the petitioner and therefore ordered reinstatement but without back wages. Hence, this writ petition. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that during the course of enquiry especially after holding that the domestic enquiry was vitiated, the second respondent-Management having produced MW.1, did not produce him for cross-examination and therefore his evidence has been eschewed. In the absence of any such valid oral evidence available on record, it cannot be said that the Management has discharged the heavy burden cast upon it. The learned counsel placed reliance on the decision of the Supreme Court as reported in Neeta Kaplish v Presiding Officer, Labour Court and another. The contentions urged on behalf of the respondents sought to be repelled. Considering the submissions made on either side and on perusal of the material, the only question that arises for consideration is whether there is any reason to justify the denial of back wages to the petitioner while ordering reinstatement. There is no dispute to the fact that the petitioner is an employee working as a Driver from 1985. It is on the ground of absence of four days and also availing leave for 82 days, a charge sheet was issued and after holding a domestic enquiry, the petitioner was removed from service. On reference, at the instance of the petitioner, the first respondent has held that the domestic enquiry was vitiated. As held in Neeta Kaplish v Presiding Officer, Labour Court and another (supra), heavy burden is cast upon the Management to prove the charges and also sustain the ultimate punishment imposed on the petitioner. However, having produced one Mr.Panjaneyulu, MW.1, they did not produce for cross-examination, therefore his evidence has been eschewed. However, having regard to the fact that the said evidence was eschewed, there is absolutely no acceptable evidence in law available on record to support the version of the Management. In the absence of any such valid material, it cannot be said that the petitioner is guilty of any allegations made against him. Further, having got reinstatement, there is no question of denial of back wages to the petitioner. In the circumstances, the petitioner is also entitled for back wages. The writ petition is accordingly allowed setting aside the award to the extent of denying back wages with a further direction to the second respondent to pay the back wages to the petitioner to which is he entitled to under the Rules. No costs. _______________ 01.12.2004 VGB To 1 The Addl.Industrial Tribunal-Cum-Addl.Labour Court Chandra Vihar Hyderabad 2 The Depot Manager A.P.S.R..T.C Ranigunj Depot -I Secunderabad 3 2CCs to the Government Pleader for Labour, High Court Buildings, Hyderabad (OUT) 4 2CD copies