THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.V.RAMANA Writ Petition No.27955 of 1996 Dated:19.12.2006 Between: M.S.Narayana. …..PETITIONER AND The Depot Manager, APSRTC, Jeedimetla Bus Depot, Jeedimetla. and another. ….RESPONDENTS THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.V.RAMANA W.P.No.27955 of 1996 ORDER: The petitioner is working as Conductor in the respondents- Corporation. While so, on 17.10.1989 he was issued charge sheet- cum-suspension order alleging misconduct in not issuing 19 tickets to passengers. The petitioner submitted his explanation denying the charges. Dissatisfied with the explanation, an enquiry was conducted. The Enquiry Officer, who conducted enquiry into the charges, held the charges proved. Based on the enquiry report, the 1st respondent issued notice to the petitioner to show cause as to why he should not be removed from service, and finally, vide proceedings dated 27.02.1990, the 1st respondent removed the petitioner from service. The appeal and review petition filed by the petitioner assailing the order of removal, were dismissed. Thereafter, the petitioner raised an industrial dispute in I.D. No. 315 of 1993, and the Labour Court, vide award dated 09.06.1994, set aside the removal order passed by the 1st respondent against the petitioner and directed the respondents to reinstate the petitioner into service with continuity of service and attendant benefits, but without back wages. Assailing the award of the Labour Court, insofar as it denied backwages, the petitioner filed this writ petition. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the Labour Court having directed the respondents to reinstate the petitioner into service, committed error in not granting the backwages. He submitted that the punishment of denial of backwages is disproportionate to gravity of the charges leveled, and prayed that the award of the Labour Court to the extent of denying backwages, be set aside and the writ petition be allowed. 3. The learned Standing Counsel for the 1st respondent-APSRTC contended that the order passed by the disciplinary authority removing the petitioner from service, was confirmed in appeal and review petition, and even though the Labour Court upheld the guilty of the petitioner, yet directed the respondents to reinstate the petitioner into service, but denied backwages, and the said award, passed by the Labour Court, in no manner can be said to be illegal or arbitrary. 4. On the last occasion, when the matter is taken up for hearing, none appeared for the petitioner. Even today, despite passing over the matter to 2.15 P.M., none appear for the petitioner. 5. Heard the learned Standing Counsel for respondent No.1- APSRTC and perused the impugned award. 6. The parameters and scope of judicial review of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a writ of certiorari are very limited. I n Surya Dev Rai v. Ram Chander Rai[1], the apex Court held as follows: Certiorari, under Art. 226 of the Constitution, is issued for correcting gross errors of jurisdiction, i.e., when a subordinate Court is found to have acted (i) without jurisdiction - by assuming jurisdiction where there exists none, or (ii) in excess of its jurisdiction by overstepping or crossing the limits of jurisdiction, or (iii) acting in flagrant disregard of law or the rules of procedure or acting in violation of principles of natural justice where there is no procedure specified, and thereby occasioning failure of justice. Within the parameters, as laid down by the apex Court, in the above judgment, the impugned award of the Labour Court has to be judged. 7. As can be seen from the affidavit, filed by the petitioner in support of the writ petition, the grievance of the petitioner is with regard to non-granting of backwages upon he being directed to be reinstated into service. 8. Merely because the petitioner was directed to be reinstated into service by setting aside the order of removal, it does not mean that he is entitled to backwages. Backwages do not follow as a result of the order of removal or termination being set aside. Grant of backwages is not automatic or mechanical, it depends upon facts and circumstances of each case (See U.P. State Brassware Corpn. Ltd. v. Uday Narain Pandey[2]). 9. In the instant case, though the Labour Court directed the respondents to reinstate the petitioner into service, the fact remains, the Labour Court found that there was misconduct on the part of the petitioner in not issuing 19 tickets to passengers. Though the petitioner was found guilty of misconduct, the Labour Court having regard to the fact that the petitioner could not issue 19 tickets to the passengers, as the bus was loaded with 96 passengers, felt that the punishment of removal from service was disproportionate, and accordingly set aside the order of punishment and directed reinstatement of the petitioner with continuity of service, and more so when there was no misappropriation on the part of the petitioner. 10. Considering the mitigating circumstance, the Labour Court felt that there was no need to order for any disciplinary action against the petitioner for the trauma undergone by him was sufficient punishment, and this finding of the Labour Court, has attained finality, as the respondent-APSRTC, is said to have not filed any appeal. The award passed by the Labour Court being a sympathetic and compassionate order, no interference is called for with the impugned award, which denied backwages to the petitioner, and more so when the same was denied considering the misconduct of the petitioner and by applying the principle of “no work no pay”. 11. The petitioner has failed to point out any infirmity or illegality in the award, warranting interference therewith by this Court in exercise of its certiorari jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 12. The writ petition is devoid of merit, and the same is accordingly dismissed. No costs. ________________ N.V. RAMANA, J. Dated:19.12.2006 ksr [1] AIR 2003 SC 3044=2003AIR SCW3872 [2] (2006) 1 SCC 479