IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE NINETEENTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR WRIT PETITION NO : 5189 of 1998 Between: The Depot Manager APSRTC Bus depot Siddipet , Medak District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 V.Dattadri S/o V.Somaiah R/o Shatrajpally , Vemulawada Mandal Karimnagar District 2 The Presiding Officer Labour Court II Hyderabad .....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 call for the records relating to the ID 350/92, dt 6-6-95, on the file of the Labour Court II , Hyderabad and declare the same to the extent of awarding , continuity of service, full backwages and other attendant benefits to the respondents 1 as arbitrary and illegal, by way of issue of writ of Mandamus Counsel for the Petitioner: SMT.B.G.UMA DEVI Counsel for the Respondent No.: MR.K.SUBHAS REDDY The Court made the following: THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR W.P.NO. 5189 OF 1998 ORDER: This writ petition is filed by the employer- Depot Manager, APSRTC, Siddipet, Medak District questioning the Award passed in I.D.No.350 of 1992, dated 06.06.1995, on the file of Labour Court II, Hyderabad, to the extent of Awarding continuity of service, full back-wages and other attendant benefits to the first respondent as arbitrary and illegal. The facts in brief are as follows: The first respondent, who working as conductor, was terminated from service, vide order of the petitioner corporation, dated 21.03.1977. The first respondent did not challenge the order before any forum and only on 27.12.1989, he has approached the Labour Court by filing I.D.No.7 of 1990. The said I.D, was later numbered as I.D.No.350 of 1992 in question. It is recorded in the Award impugned, that a joint memo was filed on behalf of both parties reporting no objection for reinstatement of the first respondent and the questions relating to continuity of service, back wages and attendant benefits were to be decided at the time of disposal of the main I.D. In pursuance of the said joint memo the first respondent was reinstated on 16.08.1995. Since then he has been working and there is no controversy with regard to his reinstatement in this writ petition also. In the impugned Award, the learned Industrial Tribunal granted all the consequential benefits to the first respondent only on the ground that the records are not traced out and not placed before the Court and no counter has been filed by the management. The said Award has been questioned by the management in this writ petition, inter alia, firstly, on the ground that the Labour Court has not taken into consideration the facts that the first respondent approached the Labour Court after 12 years and there is no explanation for the said delay, and secondly, the claim, with regard to the attendant benefits including back-wages, does not find any foundation in the ID filed by the first respondent and neither the first respondent was examined nor there was any material to support the said relief. Thus automatic grant of back- wages and attendant benefits, was not justified. Learned counsel for the petitioner relies upon the ratio of the Apex Court in J.K.SYNTHETICS LTD v K.P.AGARWAL AND ANOTHER vide paragraphs 15 to 18 thereof. Learned counsel for the first respondent contends that the petitioner – management has failed to produce the records and not filed the counter to the I.D. He further contended that though I.D was filed on 27.12.1989, the same was pending before the Labour Court for a period of five and half years, and that after the Award was passed, the petitioner – management filed a Review Petition No.90 of 1995, seeking review of the Award to the extent of back wages, but the same was rejected in limini by the Labour Court by order dated 17.10.1995, which order is extracted below: “It is represented that revision was filed against the order, hence, this is rejected.” The learned counsel for the first respondent further contended that though the first respondent was reinstated, and has been working, he has not been considered for promotions etc. in spite of the fact that continuity of service has been granted. As seen from the pleadings of the first respondent in I.D.No.350 of 1992, it conspicuously lacks, even a hint, as to how and why the petitioner is entitled to back wages and all attendant benefits. It is also evident that the first respondent has not been examined and he is neither deposed nor produced any evidence to justify his claim for back wages. The fact that first respondent has approached the Labour Court after total unexplained delay of 12 years also mitigates against any claim of the petitioner for other reliefs. It is not in dispute that the petitioner was reinstated on 16.08.1995. The contention of the first respondent that review petition in I.A.No.90 of 1995 in I.D.No.350 of 1992 filed by the petitioner was dismissed, does not make any difference inasmuch as the said review was rejected in limini. The reliance on the case first cited squarely covers the case on hand and therefore, I am of the opinion that the Award in granting full backwages is not justified and the impugned order is modified confirming the reinstatement and continuity of service but disallowing grant of back wages to the first respondent. Accordingly, the writ petition stands allowed in part. No costs. Dated:19-08-2008 __________________________ VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR kvrm THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR WRIT PETITION NO : 5189 of 1998 DATED:19.08.2008