HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED AND HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT APPEAL NOS. 1262 OF 2005 AND 1002 OF 2005 WRIT APPEAL NO. 1262 OF 2005 Between: The APSRTC represented by its Depot Manager, Hyderabad –I Depot, Hyderabad ………….Appellant AND Sri M. Damodar Reddy, S/o Kodanda Reddy ………….Respondent WRIT APPEAL NO. 2320 OF 2005 Between: The APSRTC represented by its Depot Manager, Hyderabad –I Depot, Hyderabad ………….Appellant AND Sri M. Damodar Reddy, S/o Kodanda Reddy ………….Respondent COMMON JUDGMENT: (per the Hon’ble Sri Justice GHULAM MOHAMMED) These two appeals arise out of a common order dated 3.2.2005 passed in W.P.No. 9591 and 9594 of 2000 by a learned single Judge of this Court, whereby the learned single Judge dismissed both the Writ Petitions. Brief facts of the case are that the respondent herein was appointed as a Conductor in 1974 and since then his service record was good. On 20.7.1992 at 6.00 P.M he was booked for Hyderabad-Udigiri night out service as Conductor and when he was proceeded to that service, the Traffic Inspector instructed him to go as driver for the 17 hours Raichur Service and the respondent expressed his inability to drive. Inspite of his protest that the respondent is not having regular practice to drive the vehicle, the respondent was forced to proceed as a driver for Hyderabad-Raichur at 6.25 hours and the bus started at 8.25 hours to proceed Raichur. While so the accident took place when the lorry bearing No. P-11T-1862 was stationed near HCL Factory, Shadnagar facing towards South-East leaving rear portion on the road without any indicative lights or signal. For that preliminary enquiry was conducted and a charge sheet was also issued on 6.11.1992 to the respondent herein alleging that he drove the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner and hit the lorry from behind causing major damages to both the vehicles. The Enquiry Officer held that the charges framed were proved against the respondent herein and subsequently his services were terminated. Aggrieved by the same, the respondent herein raised an Industrial Dispute and the labour Court directed the appellant herein to reinstate the respondent into service as a Conductor only. The relevant portion is extracted hereunder: “But as regards to punishment aspect is concerned it is urged that the petitioner is not having regular practice of driving the bus and on the ill-fated day the petitioner was forced by superiors to drive the vehicle. It is also contended that lorry was covered with black tarpaulin without any indicators behind the lorry the petitioner could not see the vehicle. Further it can be seen since the date of suspension the petitioner is not paid any wages or salary i.e. since 2 ½ years. Further the petitioner was also arrested and kept in judicial custody. He also faced the criminal case. Hence, the loss for income for 2 ½ years and the mental agony he underwent in facing the criminal case is sufficient punishment for the petitioner for committing the accident. Hence I hold, treating the non-payment of salary for 2 ½ years as sufficient punishment to the petitioner. I directs the petitioner be reinstated into service as a Conductor only within one month from the date of publication of award without backwages or any other monetary benefits, but with continuity of service. Further it is ordered that the petitioner should not be entrusted with the driving work in future. This award is passed.” Aggrieved by the same, APSRTC filed an application I.A.No. 207 of 1995 to set aside the ex-parte award passed in I.D.No. 2 of 1994. That application was allowed subject to the Corporation filing the counter affidavit on or before 5.10.1996. The Corporation sought extension and there after filed counter on 7.10.1996, therefore, the award was set aside and I.D was restored to file. Challenging the same, the respondent filed Writ Petition No. 23277 of 1996. The said Writ Petition was allowed on 28.4.1999 remanding the matter to the labour Court for fresh disposal in accordance with law. The labour Court adjudicated the matter on merits and passed the order dated 8.9.1999 dismissing the IA. APSRTC challenges the order in Writ Petition No. 9591 of 2000. In the meanwhile, the respondent filed MP No. 19 of 1997 before the labour Court seeking payment of wages after the publication of the award on the ground that he was not reinstated. The labour Court passed the order dated 27.10.1999 in the said MP directing his reinstatement while adjourning the matter for calculation of difference of wages. The said order is challenged by APSRTC in Writ Petition No. 9594 of 2000. Thereafter, the learned single Judge on adjudication of the matter held as under: “ Having regard to the fact as arrived at by the Labour Court as to the absence of the petitioner being almost willful, I do not find any justification to interfere with the same in exercise of the powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Further, even it has to be seen that the order was passed as long back as on 19.4.1995 and the respondent has already been reinstated without backwages or any other monetary benefits, but with continuity of service. Learned counsel for the respondent squarely submits that the respondent is happy with the reinstatement and he had been discharging his duties to the utmost satisfaction of the authorities and further, there would not be any claim for any back wages at any later point of time. In view of the same, I do not find any merits in the first Writ Petition. Accordingly, the first Writ Petition is dismissed. As regards the second Writ Petition is concerned, there is no dispute with regard to the backwages which were ordered by the Labour Court and which have remained unpaid. In the circumstances I do not find any merits in the second Writ Petition also. Accordingly, the second Writ Petition is also dismissed.” Aggrieved by the same, these two Writ Appeals are field by the APSRTC. The learned standing counsel for APSRTC submits that the award made by the labour Court was an ex parte award and when the charges were proved it ought not to have ordered reinstatement with continuity of service without backwages. On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent contended that award made by the labour Court is justified and it found that the respondent was not wholly responsible for the accident apart from that he was not driver and he was a Conductor. Heard the learned counsel appearing for both sides and also perused the material made available on record. As seen from the record, the respondent herein was working initially as a conductor on the date of accident and the officials of the appellant themselves sent him on duty as a driver. Since the respondent was removed from service, he raised a disputes under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and the same was taken as I.D.No. 2 of 1994. The labour Court directed the appellant herein to reinstate the respondent into service as a Conductor only within one month from the date of publication of award without backwages or any other monetary benefits but with continuity of service and further ordered that the respondent should not be entrusted with the driving work in future. It is further on record that no counter affidavit was filed by the APSRTC and therefore, it was set ex parte. The learned single Judge on adjudication of the mater dismissed both the Writ Petitions observing that the respondent has already been reinstated without back wages or any other monetary benefits, but with continuity of service. In the circumstances of the case, we see no reasons to interfere with the common order passed by the learned single Judge and both the Writ Appeals are liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, both the Writ Appeals are dismissed. However, liberty is given to the appellant -APSRTC to adduce oral and documentary evidence with regard to the entitlement and quantification of wages claimed by the respondent in M.P.No. 19 of 1997, pending before the labour Court. There shall be no order as to costs. ________________________ GHULAM MOHAMMED, J _____________________ SANJAY KUMAR, J DATE: 18.08.2011 KA ... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1. 2 CD copies.