THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. RAMULU Wednesday, 6th day of February,2008 W.P.No.20897 of 1999 Between:- APSRTC rep. by its Depot Manager, Musheerabad Depot, Hyderabad … Petitioner and Sri N. Narsing Rao, Ex-Conductor. E 101196, Musheerabad Depot, H.No.1-7-510/A, Harinagar, Musheerabad, Hyderabad … Respondent THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. RAMULU W.P.No.20897 of 1999 ORAL ORDER: This Writ Petition is filed being aggrieved by an Award dated 19-8-1998 made in I.D.No.4 of 1996 on the file of Labour Court- I, A.P., Hyderabad, whereunder the respondent-workman was directed to be reinstated with continuity of service, attendant benefits and full back wages. Petitioner is the Management. Respondent is the workman. It appears, the respondent, while he was working as a Conductor with A.P. State Road Transport Corporation Bus Depot, Musheerabad Depot, Hyderabad, was issued with a charge sheet enumerating the following charges: 1. He made alteration in MTD 141 card relating to service No.MS 78/1, the arrival time from 12.40 hrs to 12.20 hrs unauthorizedly; 2. He returned to Depot 20 minutes early of the schedule duty of service No.78/1 and caused regular inconvenience to the travelling public; 3. He collected MTD 141 card from the Equipment Receiving Counter ADC unauthorizedly on 30th August,1988 at 13.00 hrs, after the spell of duty stating that STI has asked for it; 4. For not returning MTD 141 card back to ADC after showing it to STI and not returned it till date resulting in disappearance of the documents wanted for verification in connection with alleged alteration or timings and early arrival by the petitioner by 20 minutes. After conducting a detailed enquiry into the said charges, the disciplinary authority imposed a punishment of removal from service by an Order dated 23-3-1989. Aggrieved thereby, the respondent filed an appeal, but the same was rejected by the appellate authority on 31- 7-1989. Thereafter, the respondent raised a dispute under Section 2-A of the Industrial Disputes Act,1947 before Labour Court-I, A.P., Hyderabad in I.D.No.4 of 1996. It was the contention of the respondent-workman before the Labour Court that the charges were trivial in their nature and absolutely there was no evidence to hold him guilty of the same. Further, assuming that there is any misconduct on his part, the punishment of removal from service was not warranted. The management filed a detailed counter denying the allegations made by the workman. Before the Labour Court, on behalf of the workman, none were examined and no documents were marked. Though no oral evidence was adduced on behalf of the management, documents Exs.M1 to M35 were marked. After a detailed consideration of the entire material placed before it, the Labour Court came to the conclusion that the enquiry conducted by the Management was valid, but held that the charges were not proved; therefore, directed reinstatement of the workman with continuity of service, attendant benefits and full back wages. Challenging the same, the present Writ Petition is filed. Learned counsel for the petitioner strenuously contended that though the respondent-workman was removed from service on 23-3- 1989 and his appeal was rejected on 31-7-1989, did not raise his little finger for taking any legal steps and he raised a dispute before the Labour Court only in the year 1996 i.e. after more than 6½ years. Even assuming that the charges are not proved, the Labour Court was not correct in awarding full back wages, as the respondent approached the Labour Court with a delay of more than 6½ years. Whereas, learned counsel for the respondent supported the Award passed by the Labour Court and contended that the Labour Court has not committed any error calling for interference of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Labour Court having found that the charges are not proved and there was no evidence to hold the workman guilty, has awarded full back wages and other attendant benefits while directing to reinstate him into service. This is a case where there was no evidence whatsoever. Therefore, the decision of the Labour Court in awarding full back wages, even though there is a delay of 6½ years, does not require alteration. I have given my earnest consideration to the respective submissions made by the learned counsel on either side and perused the impugned Award and other material made available on record. In pursuance of the impugned Award, the respondent-workman has been reinstated into service on 19-8-1998. While admitting the Writ Petition on 6-10-1999 interim stay was granted, subject to condition of the petitioner-management depositing an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- within 6 weeks. The said Order was complied with. However, when a vacate stay petition was filed, on 31-3-2001, the Corporation was further directed to pay an amount of Rs.50,000/- within a period of 6 weeks. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner-management, the said amount of Rs.50,000/- has also been paid on 25-4-2001. Now the question that requires to be considered is whether the Labour Court was right in awarding full back wages for the entire period for which the respondent-workman was kept out of employment in view of wrongful removal from service. Admittedly, though the appeal was rejected on 31-7-1989, the respondent-workman did not raise his little finger for about 6½ years and work out his remedies as per law. For the delay caused in approaching the Labour Court by the respondent-workman, the petitioner-management cannot be mulcted with penalty of full back wages for the said period also. In the facts and circumstances of the case and to meet the ends of justice, I deem it appropriate to direct the Management to pay a compensation of Rs.1,50,000/- (which was already paid pursuant to the interim orders) instead of full back wages. Accordingly, Award passed by the Labour Court is modified to be read as under: “The impugned Order of removal is set aside. The workman is ordered to be reinstated with continuity of service, attendant benefits and on payment of a compensation of Rs.1,50,000/- (which was already deposited by the management) in lieu of back wages.” With the above modification of the impugned Award, the Writ Petition is disposed of. No order as to costs. 06-2-2008 prk