IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B.N. RAO NALLA WP.NOs. 20392 & 20393 OF 2001. Between: WP.No. 20392 of 2001 Administrator Don Bosco Technical School Ring Road, Guntur, Guntur District … Petitioner V/s. Kinetinkara Madhava Rao & Anr. … Respondents WP.No. 20393 of 2001. Administrator Don Bosco Technical School Ring Road, Guntur Guntur District. … Petitioner V/s. Kinetinkara Kalyanamma … Respondents Counsel for the Petitioner : Sri G. Manohar Counsel for the Respondents : THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B.N. RAO NALLA WP.Nos. 20392 & 20393 OF 2001 COMMON ORDER : As common question of facts and law are involved in these writ petitions, they are clubbed, heard together and are being disposed of by this common order. 2. The Administrator, Don Bosco Technical School, Guntur, filed these writ petitions seeking direction from this Court to set aside the impugned awards dated 11-1-2001 in I.D.No. 247 and 248 of 1994 on the file of Labour Court, Guntur, directing the writ petitioner i.e., Don Bosco Technical School, Guntur to pay wages to the first respondent in both the writ petitions from the date of termination till the date of their attaining the age of superannuation. 3. The facts in brief are as follows: The writ petitioner-technical school is a charitable institution, imparting free technical education to poor students. It works in collaboration with St. Michel Boys Home Society, Guntur. That the first respondent was working as “Cook”, under the writ petitioner herein along with his wife. That on 20-6-1993, both the wife and husband committed theft of some provisions from the kitchen stores and kept them in almirah under their lock and key. Two students witnessed; viz., V. Ramesh Babu and Raghunath Reddy witnessed the same and they brought it to the notice of the Administrator Father Papaiah who got the almirah broken open and found the provisions in almirah. That on the following day when both wife and husband returned to duty and when they were questioned about the same, they failed to offer any reason or reply and left the place, as a result, the students were put to inconvenience, since there was no one to prepare food for them. That on 22-6-1993 the first respondent and his wife sent a legal notice alleging that they were removed from service unceremoniously without assigning any reason. That ten days thereafter they were sent for and asked to join duty. Since the copy of the notice was addressed to the Assistant Commissioner of Labour, Guntur, the said authority also directed them to join duty, but they failed to do so. That as such the writ petitioner institution was constrained to issue a charge memo to both of them on 18-8- 1993 for committing theft of the kitchen provisions and consequently for unauthorized absence from duty from 21-6-1993 onwards. That their explanations were found to be unsatisfactory and an enquiry was ordered and the Enquiry Officer found that both the charges were proved and consequently they were removed from service by proceedings dated 05-11-1993. Assailing the aforesaid removal orders, both of them preferred I.D.Nos. 247 and 248 of 1994 on the file of Labour Court, Guntur. The Labour Court, Guntur found the domestic enquiry to be legal and taking into consideration the material brought on record and after hearing both sides the Labour Court came to the conclusion that the findings of Enquiry Officer were perverse and baseless. That the Labour Court considered that from the evidence on record, rice, sugar, dal and oil were found in almirah locked by both the cooks and they were not taken away from the premises of the institution. Therefore, the Labour Court held that the charge of theft was not proved. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner-institution submits that the institution has already paid under section 17-B of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 in compliance of the orders of this Court dated 16- 4-2002 in WPMP.No. 25718 of 2001 and WVMP.No. 3023 of 2001 in WP.No. 20392 of 2001 to the first respondent-husband complying with the provisions of Section 17-B of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The first respondent-wife in WP.No. 20393 of 2001 was paid the last drawn pay in full till her attaining the age of superannuation complying with the provisions of Section 17-B of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. 5. Therefore, it is contended that the writ petitioner may be exonerated from paying the remaining half of the wages in terms of the impugned award by the Labour Court. 6. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondents in both the writ petitions contended that since the charges against the respondents held to be perverse and baseless, the writ petitioner- institution is liable to pay the remaining balance amount of half of the wages to the respondents. He also submits that both the respondents are suffering from old age ailments and there is no one to look after them and that they are badly in need of financial assistance. 7. In the circumstances, this Court find no reason to find fault with the impugned award passed by the Labour Court in I.D.Nos. 247 and 248 of 1994. 8. In the result, both the writ petitions fail and accordingly, they are dismissed. No costs. ________________________ JUSTICE B.N. RAO NALLA 04-02-2010 I s L THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B.N. RAO NALLA WP.Nos. 20392 & 20393 of 2001 COMMON ORDER 04-02-2010 I s L