THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO.1632 OF 2006 DATED 7TH DECEMBER, 2010 BETWEEN The Depot Manager, APSRTC, Tuni Depot, E.G. District. … Petitioner And G.Atcha Rao and another. … Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO.1632 OF 2006 ORDER: The Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation (APSRTC) assails the Award dated 16.03.2004 passed by the Industrial Tribunal-cum- Labour Court, Visakhapatnam, in I.D.No.83 of 2002. By the said Award, the Labour Court set aside the removal of the first respondent Driver from service under proceeding dated 18.07.2002 and directed his reinstatement in service with continuity of service and back wages. The first respondent entered the service of the APSRTC as a Driver on 29.04.1987. He was subjected to disciplinary proceedings in connection with the alleged theft of a wheel disc and the rings of the spare tyre of the bus bearing No.AEZ-4498. The vehicle was driven by the petitioner on 18.12.1998 while he was plying the service between Tuni and Kakinada. Thereafter, on 19.12.1998 the vehicle was checked by the Depot Authorities who also certified in the log sheet that everything was correct. It was only upon the report of the Mechanical Foreman, Tuni, and the Chief Inspector, Tuni, on 20.12.1998 to the effect that they found the parts to have been changed, that the charges were levelled against the first respondent. After enquiry into the matter, the APSRTC removed him from service. Aggrieved thereby, he invoked the jurisdiction of the Labour Court by way of the subject I.D. Upon examination of the material on record, the Labour Court found that before the Enquiry Officer none of the witnesses examined during the preliminary enquiry were produced. Thereby, he was deprived of an opportunity of cross-examining these witnesses. However, the depositions of the said witnesses during the preliminary enquiry were relied upon by the Enquiry Officer. The preliminary Enquiry Officer alone was examined during the enquiry proceedings. The Labour Court therefore rightly held that the enquiry report based on this defective procedure was unsustainable in law. In effect, there was no legal evidence before the Enquiry Officer to support the conclusion of guilt against the first respondent. In such circumstances, the finding of the Labour Court that the removal of the petitioner from service was unsustainable therefore does not warrant interference. In so far as the issue of back wages is concerned, the first respondent in his claim petition before the Labour Court categorically averred that due to the illegal punishment he and his family were facing a lot of financial trouble in maintaining themselves and were suffering starvation. In effect, the first respondent claimed that he was not employed during the period that he remained out of service. In spite of the same, the APSRTC did not choose to adduce any evidence to rebut this averment. Further, the first respondent having been appointed in the year 1987 was a regular Driver and had rendered more than a decade of loyal service by the time he was subjected to disciplinary proceedings. As the procedure followed by the APSRTC was irregular thereby leading to the collapse of the disciplinary proceedings, there was no adverse finding against the first respondent warranting reduction of the back wages. The Labour Court was therefore justified in granting this relief. This Court therefore does not find any grounds to interfere with the exercise undertaken by the Labour Court in its Award dated 16.03.2004 in I.D.No.83 of 2002. The Writ Petition is devoid of merit and is accordingly dismissed. No costs. ____________________ SANJAY KUMAR, J. 7TH DECEMBER, 2010. PGS/VGSR