IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE THIRTY FIRST DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 6873 of 2008 Between: 1 The Depot Manager, APSRTC,Jeedimetla Depot,R.R.Dist., 2 The Regional Manager,(HCR) APSRTC, JBS Secunderabad. ... PETITIONERS AND 1 M.Rambabu, S/o.Late Krishna Murthy,E.No.209413, R/o.9-1-33/A/14/C/1, Prashanthnagar,Langer House, Hyderabad. 2 The Labour Court-I,Hyderabad rep by its Presiding Officer. ...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 especially one in the nature of Writ of Certiorari calling for the records relating to the impugned Award dated 25.09.2006 made in I.D.No.58/2004, the Labour Court, Hyderabad published on 20.11.2006 made in G.O.Rt.No.2528, directing the Corporation to reinstate the 1st respondent into service with service with continuity of service and all other attendant benefits subject to recovery of htemedical charges if any provided to Sri Sriramulu, however, he is not entitled to any back wages and quash the same as being bad, illegal, without jurisdiction and invalid and pass Counsel for the Petitioners: MR.KAMBHAM MADHAVA REDDY Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR LABOUR The Court made the following : O R D E R: The 1st respondent was appointed as a driver in APSRTC on 24.8.1998, on daily wage basis. His services were regularized on 1.8.1999. The 2nd petitioner issued a charge sheet, dated 17.9.2002, alleging that the 1st respondent filed a false declaration of family members, by substituting the photograph of his father-in-law, in the place of his father. The 1st respondent submitted his explanation, and departmental enquiry was conducted. Through order, dated 24.1.2003, the 1st petitioner removed the 1st respondent from service. The review preferred to the 2nd petitioner was also rejected. Hence, the 1st respondent filed I.D.No.58 of 2004, in the Labour Court-I, Hyderabad. Through its award dated 25.9.2006, the Labour Court set aside the order of removal, and directed reinstatement of the 1st respondent into service, with other attendant benefits, subject to recovery of medical charges, if any, provided to the father-in-law of the 1st respondent. Back wages were denied to him. The petitioner challenges the said award. Heard Sri K. Madhava Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for the petitioner, and learned counsel for the 1st respondent. The only charge against the 1st respondent was that he had submitted incorrect and false family certificate, by showing his father-in- law in the place of his father. The record discloses that the father of the 1st respondent died, when the latter was at a very young age, and his maternal uncle, by name Sriramulu, brought him up. Subsequently, the 1st respondent married the daughter of Sriramulu. Though it was explained that the name of Sriramulu was included as father, stating that the 1st respondent was adopted by him, the plea cannot be accepted. The Labour Court also discussed the matter at length, on this aspect, and found that the 1st respondent gave false declaration. Thereafter, it proceeded to discuss the matter, with reference to the actual prejudice, which the petitioner may have suffered. The principle laid down by the Allahabad High Court in MANGALI v. CHAKKI [1] was taken note of. It is not as if the person who was included in the list of family members is a total outsider. The petitioner can be said to have sustained loss, if only any treatment was extended to the person so included. The Labour Court took note of the same, and directed that the reinstatement of the 1st respondent shall be subject to recovery of medical charges, if any, provided to Sriramulu. In addition to that, the 1st respondent was denied back wages. Therefore, the petitioner cannot be said to have suffered detriment, on account of inclusion of the name of the father-in-law of the 1st respondent. The writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. _________________ 31st March 2008 PAN [1] AIR 1963 All 527