THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO.1870 OF 2002 DATED 9TH APRIL, 2010 BETWEEN The Depot Manager, APSRTC, Bhainsa Depot, Adilabad District. … Petitioner And Sri Mohan. And Another. … Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO.1870 OF 2002 ORDER: The Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation (APSRTC) challenges the Award dated 25.03.1997 passed by the Industrial Tribunal- cum-Labour Court, Godavarikhani, in I.D. No.111 of 1994. The first respondent herein, being a Conductor in the service of the APSRTC, filed the said I.D. under Section 2-A(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for brevity, ‘the Act of 1947’) challenging his removal from service under order dated 13.09.1993. The allegation against the first respondent was that he had committed fraud in respect of police warrants whereby detriment and loss was caused to the APSRTC to the tune of Rs.510/-. After an enquiry into matter, the first respondent was removed from service by order dated 13.09.1993. His appeal was dismissed under order dated 05.08.1994. He therefore sought redressal of this grievance by invoking Section 2-A(2) of the Act of 1947. By order dated 17.03.1997 the Labour Court rendered a finding that the domestic enquiry held against the first respondent was vitiated. Surprisingly, by its Award dated 25.03.1997, i.e., a mere week thereafter, the Labour Court found fault with the APSRTC for failing to adduce evidence and place relevant material before it. On the said ground, the Labour Court held that the charge levelled against the first respondent was not proved and set aside the order removing him from service. In so far as the aspect of back wages is concerned, the Labour Curt observed that the first respondent had not placed any evidence to show that he failed to secure alternate employment and that the APSRTC had also not placed any evidence in this regard. Accordingly, the Labour Court held that the first respondent was entitled to only half of the back wages. In consequence, the Award was passed directing the APSRTC to reinstate the first respondent in service with continuity of service and attendant benefits in respect of increments only with half of the back wages. At the time of admission of this writ petition, this Court by order dated 01.02.2002 took note of the fact that the first respondent had already been reinstated in service and granted interim suspension of the operation of the impugned Award in so far as it related to payment of back wages subject to the condition that the APSRTC deposit half of the amount awarded permitting the first respondent to withdraw the same without furnishing security. It is stated on behalf of the learned standing counsel for the APSRTC that the said order was complied with and that the first respondent has withdrawn the amount so deposited. However, the first respondent did not choose to put in an appearance before this Court either in person or through counsel. Though the Labour Court showed unnecessary haste in drawing a conclusion that the APSRTC failed to adduce evidence before it as only a week had elapsed since the finding with regard to the domestic enquiry, it is relevant to note that the APSRTC did not choose to take necessary remedial steps in this regard. Even in the affidavit filed in support of this writ petition, the APSRTC did not contend that such a conclusion ought not to have been drawn, given the short passage of time between the date of the finding with regard to the domestic enquiry and the date of the Award. Further, to compound this error, there was a delay of nearly 5 years in the filing of the writ petition. I am therefore not inclined to interfere with the Award of the Labour in so far as the direction for reinstatement of the first respondent is concerned. It is however to be noticed that the first respondent did not choose to make any claim as to his being deprived of gainful employment during the period that he remained out of the service of the APSRTC. This aspect was duly noted by the Labour Court. In the absence of such a claim, the onus cannot be shifted to the employer to adduce rebuttal evidence with regard to the gainful employment of the workman. Keeping in mind the fact that the first respondent was in the service of the APSRTC for over a decade and as he was removed from service without following the due procedure, owing to the finding as to the domestic enquiry, I am of the considered opinion that the ends of justice would be sufficiently served by limiting the entitlement of the first respondent to 25% of the back wages payable for the period that he remained out of the service of the APSRTC. This amount has already been withdrawn by the first respondent pursuant to the order of this Court at the interlocutory stage. The writ petition is accordingly allowed in part modifying the Award under challenge to the extent of limiting the first respondent’s entitlement to 25% of the back wages instead of 50% as awarded by the Labour Court. The Award shall stand confirmed in all other respects. In the circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs. ____________________ SANJAY KUMAR, J. 9TH APRIL, 2010. VGSR