THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE NOOTY RAMA MOHANA RAO W.A.No.1038 of 2011 JUDGMENT (Per the Hon’ble Sri Justice Ghulam Mohammed) The first respondent-workman while working as Conductor in the appellant-APSRTC was charge sheeted on the ground of certain cash and ticket irregularities and after enquiry, he was imposed with the punishment of removal from service vide proceedings dated 04.08.1999, which were questioned by him in I.D.No.217 of 1999 before the Additional Industrial Tribunal-cum- Labour Court, Hyderabad. By award dated 06.06.2005, the Labour Court allowed the I.D., setting aside the order of removal and directing the Corporation to reinstate the workman into service with all attendant benefits, but with 50% backwages. The said award was challenged by the Corporation by filing W.P.No.2762 of 2006 wherein the learned single Judge by order dated 02.12.2010, awarded 25% instead of 50% backwages payable to the workman, within a period of three months from the date of the said order. Aggrieved by the same, the Corporation filed the present appeal. 2. Heard the learned Standing Counsel for the appellant Corporation and the learned counsel for respondent No.1- workman. 3. Learned Standing Counsel for the Corporation contended that the learned single Judge has committed error in reducing 25% from 50% backwages without assigning any reasons. 4. We have perused the material on record. The Labour Court in the award recorded a finding that the enquiry report would suffer from bereft of reasons and thereby, set aside the order of punishment of removal from service directing reinstatement of the workman into service with all attendant benefits, but with 50% backwages. Though the Labour Court recorded such a finding, it did not remit the matter to the disciplinary authority. The learned single Judge, without going into the alleged enquiry aspect, disposed of the matter awarding 25% of backwages to the workman. In the circumstances, we deem it appropriate to remand the matter to the learned single Judge. 5 . At this juncture, the learned counsel for the workman submitted that as of now the workman is in service and he prayed for award of 10% backwages to the workman instead of remanding the matter. 6. In view of the aforesaid request of the learned counsel for the workman, to put a quietus to the litigation, we direct the appellant Corporation to pay 10% of the backwages to the workman. With the above direction, the Writ Appeal is disposed of. No costs. ______________________ GHULAM MOHAMMED, J ___________________________ NOOTY RAMA MOHANA RAO, J Date:13.12.2011 sj