THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO.17348 OF 2001 DATED 26TH NOVEMBER, 2010 BETWEEN P.Nagaiah … Petitioner And The Hon’ble Labour Court-II, Hyderabad, Rep. by its Presiding Officer and another. … Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO.17348 OF 2001 ORDER: The Award dated 05.03.1997 passed by the Labour Court-II, Hyderabad, in I.D.No.77 of 1995 is challenged by the petitioner/ workman. By the said Award, the Labour Court set aside his removal from service and directed the Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation (APSRTC) to reinstate him by appointing him as a fresh candidate with continuity of service but without any other benefits. Aggrieved by the denial of back wages and attendant benefits, the petitioner/workman is before this Court. The petitioner was a Conductor in the APSRTC. He was removed from service in connection with certain cash and ticket irregularities alleged and proved against him. He therefore invoked the jurisdiction of the Labour Court by way of the subject I.D. The Labour Court, upon examination of the material on record, concurred with the finding of the Enquiry Officer as to the petitioner’s guilt. However, it opined that the punishment of removal from service was very harsh and disproportionate and accordingly granted the relief as aforestated. Relevant to note, the APSRTC did not choose to challenge the Award in so far as the reliefs granted are concerned. To that extent the Award has already attained finality. As the petitioner/workman was found guilty of the charge involving cash and ticket irregularities, the denial of back wages and attendant benefits cannot be said to be unwarranted. The Labour Court exercised jurisdiction under Section 11-A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and modified the punishment of removal from service to that of reinstatement. I therefore see no reason to grant the relief of back wages or attendant benefits to the petitioner. It is however to be noticed that the Labour Court, while granting the relief of reinstatement of the petitioner in service with continuity of service, directed the APSRTC to appoint him as a fresh candidate. The directions are contradictory in terms. If the petitioner is appointed as a fresh candidate, there is no question of extending to him continuity of service. Further, the very word ‘reinstatement’ used by the Labour Court is antithetical to a ‘fresh appointment’. The Award under challenge shall therefore be construed to mean that the APSRTC shall reinstate the petitioner in service with continuity of service but without back wages and without attendant benefits. The Writ Petition is disposed of with the above clarification. No order as to costs. ____________________ SANJAY KUMAR, J. 26TH NOVEMBER, 2010. VGSR