THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION No. 14436 OF 2008 O R D E R: The petitioner is working as Senior Steno in the Guntur-I Depot of APSRTC. Disciplinary proceedings were initiated against him, by issuing a charge sheet, dated 4.9.1996, alleging that he remained absent unauthorisedly, continuously for a long period, and the same resulted in dislocation of the work of the depot. Domestic enquiry was conducted, and thereafter, he was removed from service, vide order dated 19.12.1996. The departmental appeal and review preferred by him were rejected. Thereupon, he approached the Labour Court, Guntur, under Section 2-A (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, and the same was taken up as I.D.No.110 of 2004. Through its award dated 20.12.2007, the Labour Court had set aside the order of removal, but directing the reinstatement of the petitioner as fresh Steno, under the present scale of pay, denying him all other benefits. The petitioner feels aggrieved by the denial of benefit of continuity of service to him. Heard Sri P. Sridhar Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner, and Sri C. Prakash Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for the respondents. Three charges were framed against the petitioner in the charge sheet. In the domestic enquiry, all the charges were held proved, and the same resulted in an order of removal from service. The remedies of appeal and review availed by the petitioner were not successful. The Labour Court had examined the matter in detail, and ultimately, recorded a finding to the effect that the charges framed against the petitioner were not proved. It, however, proceeded to examine the matter, from the context of delay, on the part of the petitioner, in availing the departmental remedies, or approaching the Labour Court. On that basis, it denied the relief of reinstatement into service, with back wages and continuity of service. It directed that the petitioner be reappointed as fresh Steno, under the present scale of pay. Once the Labour Court recorded a finding to the effect that the charges framed against the petitioner were not proved, the very basis for the removal, disappeared. In the normal course, such finding must have resulted in reinstatement of the petitioner with all consequential benefits. The delay on the part of the petitioner, in availing the remedy by itself, must not result in denial of benefit of the service rendered by the petitioner, at least for the purpose of pension, etc. While the Corporation cannot be mulcted with any financial burden, on account of the delay on the part of the petitioner, a balanced approach is warranted. Hence, the writ petition is partly allowed, directing that the award of the Labour Court shall stand modified, to the effect that the petitioner shall be reinstated into service, in the same scale of pay, which he was drawing as on the date of removal. He shall be entitled to continuity of service, but the period during which he was out of service, shall not be reckoned for the purpose of calculating increment or promotion. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________ 8th July 2008 PAN