THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA Writ Petition No.3221 of 2003 ORDER: 1 The first respondent who was an RTC driver was removed from service on the ground that on account of his rash and negligent act of driving a death had occurred. Questioning the said order of removal he raised a dispute and the same was numbered as I.D No.4 of 2002. The Labour Court, after hearing all the parties concerned, passed an award directing the petitioner /management to reinstate the employee into service with continuity of service, attendant benefits and also with full back wages. The same is challenged in this Writ Petition by the management. 2 On 27.02.2003 when this court admitted this Writ Petition suspended the said award excepting the order of reinstatement. On 22.04.2003 this court in WVMP No.1521 of 2003, while making the interim order passed on 27.02.2003 absolute, directed the management to deposit 50% of the back wages payable under the award and further permitted the employee to withdraw the same. 3 Today when the matter is taken up for hearing, the learned counsel for the respondent / employee sated that pursuant to the orders passed by this court, the management has deposited 50% of the back wages and as the employee was permitted to withdraw the said amount, he withdrew it. 4 Heard. 5 Apparently, criminal proceedings have been initiated against the respondent / employee and a competent criminal court found him not guilty of the offence punishable under Section 304-A of IPC. Of course, in so far as the disciplinary proceedings are concerned, the said judgment passed by the criminal court may not have any bearing, but this court shall not loose site of the said acquittal. Further, the respondent/ employee was reinstated into service as early as in the year 2003 and during his entire service this is the only accident and this is the only criminal case against the respondent/ employee. Taking the said fact into consideration, while holding that the said award is perfectly justified, however, this court restricts the said back wages to 50%. Now the learned counsel for the respondent / employee stated that the employee has withdrawn the said back wages, which have been deposited by the management, pursuant to the orders of this court and still there is a balance. 6 Now that this court restricts the back wages to 50%, if there is any dispute with regard to the balance of back wages, the respondent/ employee may approach the Labour court concerned for necessary calculations or clarifications. 7 Accordingly, this Writ Petition is disposed of. No order as to costs. ---------------- 26.03.2010 Kvsn