IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE FIFTEENTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.7631 of 2009 Between: M. Babu Rao, S/o. Yesubhakthu, Cherukupalli Post and Mandal, Guntur District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Guntur. 2 The Depot Manager, APSRTC, Repalle Depot, Repalle, Guntur District. .....RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.GOVATHOTI BHASKARA RAO The Court made the following : ORDER: The petitioner, a Conductor of the Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation (for short ‘APSRTC’), was removed from service on a cash and ticket irregularity following the departmental enquiry. The said order was confirmed in appeal and revision by the Divisional Manager, Guntur and the Regional Manager, Guntur, vide their orders, dated 14.05.2003 and 15.10.2003, respectively. The petitioner then moved the Labour Court, Guntur by way of I.D.No.147 of 2004. The Labour Court by its award, dated 22.02.2006 and published on 24.04.2006, partly allowed the dispute and directed reinstatement of the petitioner into service without back wages and continuity of service. It was also directed in the award that on reinstatement, the pay of the petitioner shall be fixed on the basis of the last drawn pay. The petitioner was accordingly, reinstated. More than 3 years thereafter, he filed the present writ petition partly aggrieved by the said award. I have heard Sri G.Bhaskara Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record. The Labour Court in its award found that the petitioner admitted that he closed Rs.3/- denomination tickets in the S.R. and he issued the ticket bearing No.569/264402 in the next trip. The Labour Court disbelieved the plea of the petitioner that he closed the S.R. by mistake and accordingly, held that the charge against the petitioner was proved. The Labour Court, however, interfered with the quantum of punishment by applying the doctrine of proportionality. In my considered view, the petitioner is not entitled to any further relief in this writ petition for the reason that the petitioner failed to explain the inordinate delay of more than three (3) years in filing this writ petition. The writ petition thus, suffers from uncondonable laches. Further, the Labour Court while confirming the finding of misconduct, directed the petitioner’s reinstatement by applying the doctrine of proportionality. In such cases, the employees are not entitled to back wages as held by the Supreme Court in J.K. Synthetics Ltd. v. K.P. Agarwal[1]. Another reason for my disinclination to entertain this writ petition is that the petitioner neither pleaded in the affidavit that he was not gainfully employed during the period of his being out of service or that he raised any such plea before the Labour Court. The law is now well settled that the burden that an employee is not gainfully employed is on the employee and that unless he discharges such burden, he is not entitled to back wages. (See U.P. State Brassware Corporation Ltd. v. Uday Narain Pandey [2] ; J.K. Synthetics Ltd. (1 supra) and Balasaheb Desai Sahakari S.K. Limited v. Kashinath Ganapati Kambale[3]) For the above-mentioned reasons, I do not find any reason to entertain this writ petition. The writ petition is accordingly, dismissed. As a sequel to dismissal of main petition, WPMP.No.10011 of 2009 filed by the petitioner is disposed of as infructuous. C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 15th APRIL, 2009. kvni [1] (2007) 2 SCC 433 [2] (2006) 1 SCC 479 [3] (2009) 2 SCC 288