HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION Nos.1642 OF 2004 AND 21525 OF 2002 COMMON ORDER: These two writ petitions are filed challenging the award dated 03-10-2001 in I.D. No.234 of 1996 passed by the Labour Court, Guntur. 2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as arrayed in WP No.1642 of 2004. 3. The petitioner was employed as Helper in Chilakaluripet Depot of A.P.S.R.T.C. A charge sheet was issued to him alleging that he remained unauthorizedly absent from 12-12-1986 to 15-02-1987 and 26-02-1987 to 14-03-1987. The petitioner submitted his explanation and the same did not weigh with the respondent. Enquiry Officer was appointed, and on the basis of the report submitted by the Enquiry Officer, the respondent passed an order, dated 15-09-1987, directing removal of the petitioner from service. 4. The petitioner filed I.D. No.234 of 1996 under Section 2A (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short ‘the Act’) before the Labour Court. During the pendency of the I.D., petitioner attained the age of superannuation in July 2000. The Labour Court passed an award, dated 03-10-2001, holding that the charges framed against the petitioner are not proved. Relief in the form of back wages from the date of filing of the I.D., till the date on which the petitioner attained the age of superannuation was granted. The petitioner claims that he is entitled to award back wages from the date of removal from service and that the Labour Court was not justified in denying the same. 5. The respondent, on the other hand, filed WP No.21525 of 2002 challenging the award. According to it, the findings were not proved through oral and documentary evidence and there was no justification for the Labour Court in interfering with the order of removal in the I.D., which was filed with a delay of 9 years. It is also stated that the petitioner was imposed punishment on several previous occasions on proved grounds of misconduct. 6. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for the respondent. 7. The charges against the petitioner are that he remained unauthorizedly absent in two spells of time, running into months together. The Enquiry Officer found that the charges are proved. The Labour Court, however, reversed the said finding on the ground that the evidence on record is not sufficient to establish the allegation. It moulded the relief, taking into account the fact that the petitioner has already attained the age of superannuation. 8. The contention urged on behalf of the respondent, cannot be brushed aside as irrelevant. The record pertaining to the service of the petitioner, which discloses that punishments of different kinds were imposed upon him on proved grounds of indiscipline, ought not to have been ignored. The other contention is about the delay in approaching the Labour Court against the order of removal, dated 15- 09-1987. 9. Be that as it may, the Labour Court has struck a decent balance between two extreme situations. It has taken a correct decision in denying back wages to the petitioner for the period preceding the date on which he approached the Labour Court. Though that is not the normal practice, the enormous delay of 9 years cannot be condoned just like that. This Court is not inclined to interfere with the award passed by the Labour Court. 10. Be it at the instance of the petitioner or of respondent, the award is upheld, and Writ Petitions are dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. ____________________ L. NARASIMHA REDDY, J December 30, 2010. KTL