IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTIETH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 15477 of 1999 Between: APSRTC, Rep. by its Depot Manager, Tandur Depot, Ranga Reddy District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Presiding Officer, Labour Court-III, Candhra Vihar, Hyderabad. 2 Sri. Mogulaiah, E-47194, S/o. Hanmaiah Hasnabad Post, Kodangal Tq Mahabubnagar Dist. .....RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly in the nature of Writ of Certiorari by calling for the records from the 1st respondent in I.D.No. 14 of 1998 published in G.O.Rt.No.365 dt. 6-3-1999 on the file of the Hon'ble Labour Court-III, Hyderabad i.e. 1st respondent herein and quash the order. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.K.MADHAVA REDDY Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR LABOUR The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No: 15477 of 1999 O R D E R: This writ petition is filed by the Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Corporation’) aggrieved by the award of Labour Court- III, Hyderabad dated 18-11-1998, passed in I.D.No.14 of 1998, in which, the Labour Court has set aside the order of removal passed by the petitioner-Corporation against the second respondent and ordered for reinstatement of the second respondent to the post of Assistant Depot Clerk with continuity of service with all attendant benefits, but, without back wages. The second respondent was initially appointed as Conductor in the year 1974 in Hyderabad Division of the Corporation. On his request, he was posted to Tandur Depot in the year 1977. While he was in service in Tandur Depot, he was removed from service on 12-02-1979 alleging cash and ticket irregularities. Against the said order of removal, he preferred an appeal before the Divisional Manager, Hyderabad Division, on 20- 12-1979. During the pendency of the appeal, he again applied for the post of Conductor pursuant to an advertisement issued by the Mahabubnagar Division, and was appointed as Conductor on 18-06-1980. Subsequently, the appeal preferred by the second respondent was allowed and he was appointed as Conductor afresh, in Hyderabad Division at Pargi Depot, vide proceedings dated 31-03-1981. While so, on a complaint made by some of the employees of Pargi Depot, disciplinary proceedings were initiated against the second respondent on the ground that he failed to give full and correct information regarding his previous appointment, which will constitute misconduct within the meaning of Regulation 28(XXII), (XXXI) and (XXXII) of the Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation Employees’ (Conduct) Regulations, 1963, and therefore, a charge was framed against him on 20-09-1997, which reads as under: CHARGE: “For having failed to give full and correct information regarding your previous appointment and subsequent removal from service as Conductor in APSRTC which constitutes misconduct under Reg.28(xxii), (xxxi) and (xxxii) of APSRTC Employees’ (Conduct) Reg.1963.” Based on the findings arrived at in the domestic enquiry, the second respondent was again removed from service by order, dated 23-01-1998. Challenging the same, he preferred I.D.No.14 of 1998 under Section 2- A(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Before the Labour Court, no oral evidence was adduced on either side, but, however, on behalf of the Corporation, Exs.M.1 to M.18 were marked. The Labour Court recorded a finding that though the Regulations prescribe for furnishing of information with regard to previous employment when demanded by the Superior Officer, but in the absence of proof of any specific demand by any Superior Officer at the time of recruitment, it cannot be said that the second respondent has committed misconduct within the meaning of the Regulations referred above. Therefore, the Tribunal allowed the I.D and directed to reinstate the second respondent with all attendant benefits, but, without back wages. Hence, this writ petition by the Corporation. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the second respondent secured the employment by suppressing the fact of his previous employment, and also about his removal from the services of the Corporation. Though he was removed from service by order dated 12-02-1979, but subsequently, he was reinstated into service as per the orders of the appellate Authority. In that view of the matter, the charge framed against the second respondent with reference to his appointment on 01-05- 1974 is baseless. In any event, the regulation, which is alleged to have been violated, merely says that one has to disclose the information regarding the previous appointment, or any other particulars, when demanded by the Superior Officer. In the absence of any specific column to that effect in the form prescribed for recruitment, it cannot be said that the second respondent has suppressed any material information. In that view of the matter, the labour Court has rightly came to the conclusion that the findings of the enquiry Officer are not based on any evidence, so as to prove that the second respondent has violated the conduct regulations, particularly the Regulation referred above. Further, it is also to be noted that even at the time of his appointment, the second respondent mentioned his date of birth as 25-07-1951, and hence, he is almost at the fag end of his service. Therefore, at this stage, I do not find any ground to interfere with the award of the labour Court, ordering for his reinstatement with continuity of service and attendant benefits, but without back wages. The writ petition is devoid of merit and the same is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. _______________________ R.SUBHASH REDDY,J Date: 20-08-2008 KLP