IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE SEVENTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION No. 13890 of 2008 Between: Md. Shareef, S/o. Hassan Shareef, R/o. H.No. 1-9-9, Azampura, Medak District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Depot Manager, APSRTC, Narayankhed Depot, Medak District. 2 The Presiding Officer, Labour Court-II, Hyderabad. .....RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Certiorari calling for the entire record including and up to the order dt. 27-9-1999 passed by the Labour Court-II, Hyderabad in ID N. 8/1997 (2nd respondent herein) quashing the order of the 2nd respondent dated 27-9-1999 in ID N. 8/1997 only to the limited extent of not granting back wages to the petitioner and consequently, to grant back wages to the petitioner from the date of suspension to the date of reinstatement by allowing the ID No. 8/1997 to that extent. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.S.I.VARAHA GIRI Counsel for the Respondents: SMT.B.G.UMA DEVI The Court made the following ORDER: The petitioner is working as a Driver in Medak Depot of A.P.S.R.T.C. In February 1993, he was transferred to Narayankhed Depot. He did not report to duty and remained absent for a period of three months. Therefore, the first respondent herein, initiated disciplinary proceedings and, ultimately, passed an order, dated 13.09.1993, removing the petitioner from service. The petitioner raised an industrial dispute before the Labour Court- II under Section 2-A (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. It was taken up as I.D.No.8 of 1997. Through its award, dated 27.09.1999, the Labour Court had set aside the order of removal and directed reinstatement of the petitioner with continuity of service, but without back wages. The petitioner feels aggrieved by the denial of back wages by the Labour Court. Heard Sri S.I.Varaha Giri, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Smt.B.G.Uma Devi, the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents. The petitioner remained absent without any leave, for a period of three months and thereby, exposed himself for disciplinary action. The order of removal was set aside by the Labour Court on a technical ground that the first respondent did not have the jurisdiction, since the petitioner was already transferred from that Depot. At the same time, the Labour Court expressed the view that the petitioner approached it at a very belated stage, because he may have been working elsewhere. It was on this basis that it denied back wages to the petitioner. Strictly speaking, the Labour Court ought to have remanded the matter for fresh enquiry. By showing indulgence, it directed reinstatement of the petitioner and denied back wages. This Court is not inclined to take any different view. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. ___________________ L.NARASIMHA REDDY,J Dt: 07.07.2008. kdl ..... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1.2CCs to 2.2CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WP{RLD}