THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO WRIT PETITION No. 15808 of 1999 O R D E R: This Writ Petition is filed by the Depot Manager of the Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation (for short, ‘the Corporation’), Chilakaluripet Depot, Guntur District, calling in question the correctness and validity of the Award passed by the Labour Court, Guntur in I.D.No. 236 of 1994 raised by the 1st respondent workman who was working as a Conductor with the Corporation. On the ground that the 1st respondent workman has mis- behaved with the Deputy Superintendent (Traffic) of the Statistical Section of Chilakaluripet Bus Depot and abused him in unparliamentary language and also assaulted some other employees of the Corporation, he has been subjected to disciplinary proceedings by framing two charges on 01.09.1992. A domestic enquiry was conducted thereafter and based upon the findings recorded by the Enquiry Officer, the 1st respondent workman has been removed from service through proceedings, dated 16.03.1993 issued by the writ petitioner herein. Since the appeal preferred there against to the Divisional Manager failed, the 1st respondent workman invoked the provisions available under Section 2-A(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and raised the aforementioned Industrial Dispute. The Labour Court has returned a finding that the order of removal is not valid and legal and it is not justified. Hence, the Labour Court has set aside the order passed on 16.03.1993 removing the 1st respondent workman from service and directed him to be reinstated back into service with continuity of service benefit, but however, denied him completely back wages. It is this Award passed by the Labour Court, which is challenged in this Writ Petition. However, the workman has since been reinstated, pursuant to the Award passed by the Labour Court. During the pendency of this Writ Petition, the Depot Manager, Piduguralla Depot, Guntur District passed orders on 01.09.2003 imposing the punishment of removal from service on the 1st respondent workman, for the proven misconduct alleged against him. The learned Standing Counsel for the Corporation, therefore, points out that on and from 01.09.2003, the relationship of master and servant between the 1st respondent and the Corporation stood severed once again. It will also be appropriate, at this stage, to notice that simultaneously, along with the 1st respondent workman, the Corporation has also proceeded against one other individual by name, Sri G. Malyadri, as a measure of discipline, as he was also involved in the alleged incident of abusing the Deputy Superintendent (Traffic) and trying to assault/assaulting other employees of the Corporation. Since the appeal preferred by Sri Malyadri failed at the hands of the Divisional Manager, Sri Malyadri has also raised Industrial Dispute No. 105 of 1994 in terms of Section 2-A(2) of the 1947 Act. That I.D. was allowed by the Labour Court similarly ordering for reinstatement of Sri G.Malyadri with the benefit of continuity of service and denied him complete back wages. Like in the instant case, the Corporation has carried the matter by filing Writ Petition No. 16113 of 1999 against the Award of the Labour Court in I.D.No. 105 of 1994, while the workman there Sri G. Malyadri filed Writ Petition No. 18702 of 1999 aggrieved by the denial of back wages to him by the Labour Court. Both the aforesaid Writ Petitions have been heard by My learned Brother Justice R. Subhash Reddy and by order, dated 17.02.2009, the learned Judge, after an elaborate consideration, held that in normal circumstances, the matter would have been remitted back for fresh consideration by the Tribunal, but keeping in mind the fact that the individual workman was removed as early as in the year 1993 and the Labour Court has passed its Award in the year 1999 ordering for his reinstatement and the workman stood reinstated thereafter and ten years have passed by, felt that interests of justice would be met if the order of reinstatement is confirmed by denying the back wages. Thus, both the Writ Petitions bearing No. 16113 and 18702 of 1999 were dismissed. Even in the instant case, dealing with this Wit Petition, at an interlocutory stage, My learned Brother Justice V.V.S. Rao passed an order 28.10.1999 staying the payment of back wages from 01.04.1999 i.e. for the post-award period only. The learned Judge has specifically said that there shall be no interim suspension or stay of the Award with regard to reinstatement of the 1st respondent workman. I, therefore, consider it appropriate to dispose of this Writ Petition by confirming the relief in favour of the 1st respondent workman only to the extent of reinstatement into service till such time, the order passed by the Depot Manger, Piduguralla on 01.09.2003 once again removing him from service. It is needless to observe that the 1st respondent workman is not entitled to be paid back wages from the date of removal, namely 16.03.1993 till the date of his actual reinstatement into service, in pursuance of the Award passed by the Labour Court as well as the order passed by this Court on 28.10.1999. The Writ Petition stands accordingly disposed of. No costs. ---------------------------------- (NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO, J) 30th June 2010 ksld