HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT PETITION No.159 of 2006 ORDER: The petitioner in I.D.No.304 of 1999 on the file of the Additional Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Hyderabad assails the award dated 23.07.2001 passed therein to the extent it denied him backwages. The Labour Court directed reinstatement of the petitioner in the service of the Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation (APSRTC) as a helper with continuity of service and attendant benefits but without back wages. The petitioner entered the service of the APSRTC as a cleaner on 23.12.1968. He was thereafter promoted to the post of helper. He was subjected to disciplinary proceedings in the year 1995 in connection with the attempted theft of window frames and window shutters which were being transported without permission in the vehicle. He was placed under suspension on 12.01.1996 and eventually, after due enquiry, he was removed from service on 28.09.1996. Aggrieved thereby, he approached the Labour Court by way of the subject I.D. The Labour Court, upon examination of the material on record, came to the conclusion that the charge levelled against the petitioner was not established and held that his removal from service was not justified. It accordingly granted the reliefs aforestated but denied him backwages. Sri P.Govinda Rajulu, learned counsel for the petitioner, contended that on the facts of the case, the Labour Court was not justified in denying his client backwages. Sri Anand Shinde, learned counsel representing Sri C.Sunil Kumar Reddy, learned standing counsel for the APSRTC, however sought to support the award of the Labour Court and submitted that the same did not warrant interference. The claim petition filed by the petitioner before the Labour Court is placed on record and demonstrates that he specifically averred therein that he remained unemployed since the date of his removal from service in spite of his best efforts to secure alternative employment. This aspect was not rebutted by the APSRTC by adducing evidence to the contrary. As per the law laid down by the Supreme Court in J.K.Synthetics v. K.P. Agrawal[1], once the workman made an affirmation on oath in his pleadings that he remained unemployed, the burden would shift to the employer to refute the same. The petitioner having fulfilled this requirement, the APSRTC failed to discharge the onus placed on it to prove to the contra. That apart, the facts on record demonstrate that the petitioner was a regular employee of APSRTC and rendered long and loyal service to it as he was appointed way back in the year 1968. That being so, in the light of the finding of the Labour Court to the effect that the charge levelled against the petitioner was not proved, denial of backwages in entirety is not justified. It must be noticed that the petitioner was kept out of service from 12.01.1996 upto his reinstatement on 02.04.2002. As there is no legally sustainable foundation for such denial of employment over these six years, the petitioner is entitled to be compensated monetarily atleast to some extent. Keeping in mind the facts of the case and the law enunciated by the Supreme Court, this Court is of the considered opinion that payment of 50% of the backwages for the period that the petitioner was kept out of employment would serve the ends of justice. The award of the Labour Court in I.D.No.304 of 1999 is accordingly modified to that extent and the APSRTC is directed to pay 50% backwages for the period 12.01.1996 to 02.04.2002. This amount shall be remitted to the petitioner within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The Writ Petition is accordingly allowed in part. No order as to costs. SANJAY KUMAR, J. Date:29.11.2010 usd [1] 2007(2)SCC 433