HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED AND HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT APPEAL NO. 1975 OF 2004 Between: The Depot Manager, APSRTC ………….Appellant AND D. Harinath S/o Seshaiah and one another ………….Respondents JUDGMENT: (Per Hon'ble Sri Justice Ghulam Mohammed) This Writ Appeal has been filed aggrieved by the order dated 18.6.2004 passed in W.P.No. 12501 of 1994 by a learned Single Judge of this Court, whereby the Writ Petition was allowed and the impugned award to the extent of denying the backwages was set-aside with a direction to the second respondent to pay all the backwages with all the attendant benefits. Brief facts of the case are that the first respondent while conducting the bus on 13.1.1985 on route No. 105, a charge memo was issued on the allegations of collection of 0.25 ps instead of required fare of 0.30 ps and failed to issue tickets to a boy aged 18 years and further refused to sign passenger statement and caused detention of service for one hour. After conducting enquiry the services of the first respondent were terminated. Aggrieved by the same, the first respondent approached the second respondent herein viz., the Additional Industrial Tribunal –cum- Additional Labour Court, Hyderabad and it allowed the appeal ordering reinstatement without backwages. Aggrieved by the same, the first respondent filed Writ Petition and a learned Single Judge of this Court allowed the Writ Petition and set aside the impugned award to the extent of denying the backwages. Aggrieved by the same, APSRTC preferred this Writ Appeal. The learned Standing Counsel appearing for the appellant-Corporation submits that the learned Judge has committed a serious error in granting backwages and attendant benefits when the Labour Court denied the same. He also submits that inspite of being given fresh appointment, the first respondent did not choose to report for duty and therefore, he is not entitled for any backwages. On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for the first respondent submits that the order of the learned Single Judge is quite reasonable in directing the appellant herein to pay all the backwages with all the attendant benefits and therefore, there are no grounds to interfere with the order passed by the learned Single Judge. Heard the learned counsel appearing for both sides and also perused the material made available on record. As seen from the record, the TTI also stated that the first respondent refused to attest passengers statement and did not produce registration certificate at the terminus, therefore, the Labour Court held that the statement of the first respondent in Ex. M14 is bereft of truth. It is further on record that the first respondent was reinstated into service by the appellate authority but he did not avail the opportunity of joining the same. Hence, the Labour Court directed the appellant herein to reinstate the first respondent into service with continuity of service but without backwages and attendant benefits. As the first respondent did not choose to join the service as directed by the appellate authority, he is not entitled for backwages and attendant benefits. Accordingly, the Writ Appeal is allowed. There shall be no order as to costs. ________________________ GHULAM MOHAMMED, J _____________________ SANJAY KUMAR, J DATE: 18.10.2011 KA ... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1. 2 CD copies.