IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD THURSDAY, THE SEVENTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE AND THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY Writ Appeal Nos.563, 670, 671, 672, 566 & 573 of 2008 Writ Appeal No. 563 of 2008 (Writ Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the Order dated 09/04/2008 in Writ Petition No. 27672 of 2005 on the file of the High Court.) Between: M/s Andhra Sugars Limited, Venkatarayapuram, Tanuku, West Godavari district, Rep by its Asst. General Manager(HR), G.Balakrishna, S/o. Somanna, aged 54 years. ... APPELLANT AND 1) Labour Court, Guntur, Rep by its Presiding Officer, 2) Gudala nageshwar Rao, S/o. Ramdass, R/o. Behind ASL'C' Colony, Venktarayapuram, Tanuku Mandal, W.G.District. ...RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Appellant: MR.V.SRINIVAS Counsel for Respondent No.1: GP FOR LABOUR Counsel for Respondent No.2: MS. DEVINENI RADHA RANI Writ Appeal No. 670 of 2008 (Writ Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the Order dated 09/04/2008 in Writ Petition No. 27672 of 2005 on the file of the High Court.) Between: Gudala Nageswara Rao, S/o. Ramdas, R/o. Behind A.S.L., "C" Colony, Venklatarayapuram, Tanuku Mandal, West Godavari District. ... APPELLANT AND 1) M/s.Andhra Sugars Limited, Venkatarayapuram, Tanuku, West Godavari District represented by its General Manager (HRD), K.Ramaseshayya, s/o Venkatapathi, aged 54 yrs. 2) Labour Court, Guntur, Rep. by its Presiding Officer. ...RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Appellant: MS.DEVINENI RADHA RANI Counsel for Respondent No.1: MR. V. SRINIVAS Counsel for the Respondent No.2: GP FOR LABOUR Writ Appeal No. 671 of 2008 (Writ Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the Order dated 09/04/2008 in Writ Petition 27670 of 2005 on the file of the High Court.) Between: Mallipudi Venkat Rao, s/o Ganganna, r/o Veerabhadrapuram, Tanuku Mandal, West Godavari District. ... APPELLANT AND 1) M/s.Andhra Sugars Limited, Venkatarayapuram, Tanuku, West Godavari District represented by its General Manager (HRD), K.Ramaseshayya, s/o Venkatapathi aged 54 yrs. 2) Labour Court, Guntur, Rep. by its Presiding Officer. ...RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Appellant:MS.DEVINENI RADHA RANI Counsel for Respondent No.1: MR. V. SRINIVAS Counsel for the Respondent No.2: GP FOR LABOUR Writ Appeal No. 672 of 2008 (Writ Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the Order dated 09/04/2008 in Writ Petition No. 27671 of 2005 on the file of the High Court.) Between: Tenaty Rattaiah S/o. Satyanandam, R/o. Veerabhadrapuram, Tanuku Mandal, West Godavari District. ... APPELLANT AND 1) M/s. Andra Sugar Ltd., Venkatarayapuram, Tanuku, West Godavari District, rep. by its General Manager (HRD), K.Ramaswhsayya S/o. Venkatapathi, Aged 54 years. 2) Labour Court, Guntur, Rep. by its Presiding Officer. ...RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Appellant:MS.DEVINENI RADHA RANI Counsel for Respondent No.1: MR. V. SRINIVAS Counsel for the Respondent No.2: GP FOR LABOUR Writ Appeal No. 566 of 2008 (Writ Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the Order dated 09/04/2008 in Writ Petition No. 27671 of 2005 on the file of the High Court.) Between: M/s. Andhra Sugars Limited, Venkatarayapuram, Tanuku, West Godavari District Rep by its General Manager (HR), G. Balakishna S/o. Somanna aged 54 yrs. ... APPELLANT AND 1) Labour Court, Guntur, Rep by its Presiding Officer. 2) Tenety Rattaiah, S/o.Satyanandam, R/o.Veerabhadrapuram , Tanuku Mandal, W.G.District. ...RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Appellant: MR.V.SRINIVAS Counsel for Respondent No.1: GP FOR LABOUR Counsel for Respondent No.2: MS. DEVINENI RADHA RANI Writ Appeal No. 573 of 2008 (Writ Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the Order dated 09/04/2008 in Writ Petition No. 27670 of 2005 on the file of the High Court.) Between: M/s.andhra Sugars Limited, Venkatarayapuram, Tanuku, West Godavari District represented by its General Manager (HRD), K.Ramaseshayya, s/o Venkatapathi ... APPELLANT AND 1) Labour Court, Guntur, represented by its Presiding Officer 2) Mallipudi Venkat Rao, s/o Ganganna, r/o Veerabhadrapuram, Tanuku Mandal, West Godavari District. ...RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Appellant: MR.V.SRINIVAS Counsel for Respondent No.1: GP FOR LABOUR Counsel for Respondent No.2: MS. DEVINENI RADHA RANI The Court made the following: Oral Judgment: (Per Shri Anil R. Dave, Chief Justice) 1. Being aggrieved by a common order dated 09.4.2008 passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition Nos.27670, 27671, 27672 of 2005 and 338 of 2006, these appeals have been filed by both the employer and the workmen. 2. Facts giving rise to the litigation, in a nutshell, are as under: 3. For the sake of convenience, the parties to the litigation have been described as per their status. The original respondent workmen were working under the original petitioner employer. It was the case of the employer that the workmen had submitted their resignations, but thereafter the workmen had alleged that their signatures were taken on blank papers and subsequently the resignations had been fabricated. 4. In the afore-stated circumstances, workmen had approached the Labour Court and the Labour Court came to the conclusion that the resignation letters were not genuine and, therefore, an award was made to the effect that the workmen should be reinstated into service with full back wages. 5. The afore-stated award was challenged by the employer by filing the petitions. 6. After hearing the learned advocates, the learned Single Judge has partly allowed the petitions by passing an order to the effect that instead of 100%, 75% back wages should be awarded to the workmen. 7. Being aggrieved by the afore-stated order passed by the learned Single Judge, the employer as well as the workmen have approached this Court. 8. We have heard the learned advocates at length and have also gone through the judgment delivered by the learned Single Judge as well as the award made by the Labour Court. 9. We are in agreement with the findings arrived at by the Labour Court as well as the learned Single Judge that the resignation letters were not genuine. The reasons incorporated in the resignation letters did not appear to be just, proper and relevant. Moreover, the amount payable upon termination of the services of the workmen was paid by cheques, which had not been accepted by the workmen. This was the relevant factor, which weighed with the Labour Court as well as with the learned Single Judge because, if the workmen had submitted their resignations voluntarily, there was no reason for them not to accept the amount payable upon termination of their services. 10. So far as back wages are concerned, the learned Single Judge has used his discretion and has awarded 75% back wages instead of 100% back wages awarded by the Labour Court. In our opinion, the view expressed by the learned Single Judge is as per the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of General Manager, Haryana Roadways v. Rudhan Singh[1], which has also been referred to by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of J.K. Synthetics Ltd. v. K.P. Agrawal and another[2]. 11. For the afore-stated reasons, we do not find any ground to interfere with the just and proper order passed by the learned Single Judge. 12. In the circumstances, the appeals filed by the employer as well as the workmen are dismissed with no order as to costs. ANIL R. DAVE, CJ July 08, 2008 R. SUBHASH REDDY, J svs ........REGISTRAR To 1. 2.2 CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WA {LS} [1] (2005) 5 SCC 591 [2] 2007 (3) SCC 792