IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY NINTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT APPEAL NO : 2131 of 2003 (Writ Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the Order dated 11/07/2002 in WP NO : 12410 OF 2002 on the file of the High Court.) Between: The Depot Manager, APSRTC. Avanigadda Depot, Krishna District. ..... APPELLANT AND 1 B. Brahamam, S/o. Venkata Narayana,(died) per LR Ex-Driver, Avanigadda Depot, R/o. Bogireddypalli, Bandar (Mandal), Krishna District. 2 Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Guntur. 3 B. Mahalaxmi W/o. late Brahmam R/o. Bogireddypalli, Bandar (Mandal), Krishna District. R3 is brought on record as LR of deceased R1 as per Court order dt. 29-6-2005 in WAMP 2148 of 2005 .....RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Appellant:MR.C.PRAKASH REDDY(SC FOR APSRTC) Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR LABOUR THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH and THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT APPEAL No.2131 of 2003 JUDGMENT:(per Hon’ble Sri Justice Sanjay Kumar) This Writ Appeal is filed by the unsuccessful Petitioner, the A.P.S.R.T.C., aggrieved by the dismissal of the W.P.No.12410 of 2002 by order dated 11.07.2002. The 1st Respondent in the Writ Appeal, since deceased and represented by the 3rd Respondent, his widow, was appointed as a Driver in the A.P.S.R.T.C. It is the case of the A.P.S.R.T.C. that while he was driving the bus No. AP9Z 7518 between Machilipatnam and Avanigadda on 18.01.1997, he caused a major accident and was kept under suspension. Thereafter, he was issued charge sheet dated 11.02.1997 and a disciplinary enquiry was instituted. The Enquiry Officer submitted his report dated 31.01.1997 holding that the charges levelled against the 1st Respondent were proved. Thereupon, the disciplinary authority caused issuance of a show cause notice to the 1st Respondent as to why he should not be removed from service and after considering the 1st Respondent’s explanation, final proceedings dated 11.03.1998 were issued removing the 1st Respondent from service. Aggrieved thereby, the 1st Respondent raised an Industrial Dispute in I.D.No.126 of 1998 on the file of the Labour Court, Guntur, and an Award was passed on 23.10.2001 holding that the 1st Respondent’s removal from service was not legal and valid. Accordingly, the Labour Court directed the A.P.S.R.T.C. to reinstate the 1st Respondent into service with continuity of service and with full back wages. Aggrieved thereby, the A.P.S.R.T.C. filed Writ Petition No.12410 of 2002 before this Court and by the order dated 11.07.2002, the learned Single Judge of this Court dismissed the Writ Petition at the stage of admission. Hence, the present Writ Appeal. Heard Sri C.Prakash Reddy, learned counsel for the A.P.S.R.T.C. and Sri A.K.Jaya Prakash Rao, learned counsel appearing for the 3rd Respondent. Sri C.Prakash Reddy strenuously contended that the Labour Court ought not to have awarded full back wages as the 1st Respondent had not pleaded and proved that he was not gainfully employed during the period that he was out of service. He relied upon the Judgment of the Supreme Court in J.K.Synthetics Vs. K.P.Agarwal[1] in support of his contention that the award of back wages would not follow as a natural or necessary consequence of reinstatement in service. On the contrary, Sri A.K.Jaya Prakash Rao pointed out that the Labour Court has passed a well considered Award and clearly found that there was no evidence adduced in the enquiry to support the finding that the charges against the 1st Respondent were proved. We have gone through the material on record and we find that the Labour Court was absolutely correct in coming to the conclusion that the findings of the Enquiry Officer were perverse and baseless, as no evidence was let in by the A.P.S.R.T.C. to make out a case against the 1st Respondent. Accordingly, the punishment based on such findings cannot be held to be legal and valid. So far as the issue of back wages is concerned, it is relevant to note that even in the affidavit filed in support of the Writ Petition, the A.P.S.R.T.C. did not raise a specific ground with regard to the failure on the part of the 1st Respondent to state and prove that he was not gainfully employed during the period that he was out of service. The only ground, viz., ground (g) in the grounds raised in the affidavit vaguely touches upon this aspect. This ground reads as follows: “The Labour Court grossly erred in directing reinstatement of the workman into service much more with continuity of service and with full back wages which is highly arbitrary and illegal.” Without a specific plea being raised, it is not open to the A.P.S.R.T.C. to now argue that the failure was on the part of the 1st Respondent to plead and prove that he was out of service, all the more so, after the death of the 1st Respondent and when the matter is being contested by his widow. So far as the Judgment in J.K.Synthetic’s case (1 supra) is concerned, it is relevant to note that the Supreme Court made a distinction therein with regard to entitlement to back wages in cases pertaining to “misconduct reinstatement” as distinguished from reinstatement following illegal termination. The Court held that it was only in the cases of “misconduct reinstatement” that back wages do not follow as a natural or necessary consequence of such reinstatement. The said principle, even according to the Supreme Court, does not apply in the case of reinstatement following an illegal termination from service. That being so, in the present case, we have already found that the termination of the 1st Respondent, as found by the Labour Court, is wholly illegal being unsupported by evidence. Therefore, the principle laid down in J.K.Synthetic’s case (1 supra) has no application to the present case. The 1st Respondent, having been illegally terminated from service, is entitled to full back wages, as rightly awarded by the Labour Court and confirmed by the learned Single Judge. The amounts due to the first respondent, as per the award of Labour Court, shall be paid to the third respondent within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. There are no merits in the writ appeal and the same is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. V.ESWARAIAH,J SANJAY KUMAR,J Dt:29.04.2009 usd [1] 2007 (2) SCC 433