IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE FOURTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 8722 of 2006 Between: Nemalikanti Venkateswara Rao, s/o Radhakrishna Murthy, Door No.4-15-117/23, Karanam's House, Postal Colony, Bharatpet Post, Amaravathi Road, Guntur-522 002. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Divisional Manager, APSRTC, Guntur. 2 the Divisional Manager, APSRTC, Narasaraopet. 3 The Depot Manager, APSRTC, Guntur-I Depot, Guntur. 4 The Depot Manager, APSRTC, Macherla Depot, macherla, Guntur District. 5 The Presiding Officer, labour Court, Guntur. .....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 one in the nature of writ of mandamus declaring the order dt.07-02-2006 in EP No.18/2000 in I.D.No.12/1992 on the file of 5th respondent court as arbitrary, illegal, unconstitutional and violative of Art.14, 16 & 21 of Constitution of India and provisions of I.D.Act, 1947 by setting aside the same and consequently direct respondent Nos.1 to 4 pay an amount of Rs.14,93,339/- as claimed by (revised calculations) in the E.P., and pass such other orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.M.PITCHAIAH Counsel for the Respondent No.: MR.C.PRAKASH REDDY(SC FOR APSRTC) The Court made the following : ORDER This writ petition has been filed by Nemalikanti Venkateswara Rao assailing the order dated 7.2.2006 passed in E.P.18 of 2000 in I.D.No.12 of 1992 on the file of the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Guntur, whereby and whereunder the learned Presiding Officer terminated the EP proceedings on the ground that the petitioner is not entitled to receive any more amounts from the respondents. The petitioner was appointed as a driver in the year 1975 in the A.P. State Road Transport Corporation. The petitioner was removed from service with effect from 15.07.1987 for his unauthorized absence. He raised an industrial dispute in the year 1992. The Labour Court passed an award on 28.11.1997 ordering his reinstatement into service with continuity of service, 50% back wages and attendant benefits. Assailing the award dated 28.11.1997 passed in I.D.No.12 of 1992, the petitioner workman filed WP No.30873 of 1998 and the respondents-Corporation filed WP No.16655 of 1998. A learned single Judge of this Court by a common order dismissed both the writ petitions. Assailing the order passed by the learned single Judge, the respondents- Corporation filed W.A.No.872 of 2000. The said writ appeal ended in dismissal on 7-8-2000. The relevant portion of the order passed in the writ appeal reads as hereunder: “The labour Court finally came to the conclusion that the transfer is mala fide, consequently the removal from service is bad. The charges framed against the workman, which were referred to in the order of the learned single Judge in pith and substance relates to only one cause of action i.e., the transfer of the workman, which has been stated to be amounting to misconduct under the Regulations of the Corporation. Once the transfer is held to be mala fide, nothing survives to go into the charges in detail for recording a finding on the charges. We find no error in the order of the learned single Judge confirming the award of the labour Court especially when it was found as a fact by the labour Court and confirmed by the learned single Judge that the respondent-workman was transferred and being harassed by the management because of his participation in the union activities. The learned counsel for the appellant then vehemently contended that the charge against the workman is that he has not reported for duty at the place he was posted. We find no force in the said submission for the simple reason that once a finding of fact has been recorded by the labour Court that his transfer was mala fide and for ulterior consideration and suffers from the infirmity of malice, the order would be a void order, consequently the respondent- workman cannot be held guilty for not complying with the mala fide and void transfer order. If the workman is to be held guilty for non-compliance of the mala fide order, then it would amount to putting a premium on the mala fide acts of the Corporation. The respondents-Corporation carried the matter to the Supreme Court and filed Civil Appeal No.793 of 2001. The Civil Appeal ended in dismissal. Thereafter, the petitioner filed E.P.No.18 of 2000 under Order 21, Rule 43, 64 and 66 CPC for execution of the award passed in I.D.No.12 of 1992 by way of attachment of movable properties of the respondents. The learned Presiding Officer of the Labour Court proceeded to dismiss the execution petition on the ground that the petitioner is not entitled to back wages from the date of suspension from service pending enquiry. Assailing the said order dated 7.2.2006 passed in E.P.No.18 of 2000 in I.D.No.12 of 1992, the petitioner has filed this writ petition. Rule Nisi came to be issued on 26.4.2006. Respondents 1 to 4 entered appearance through their Standing Counsel and 5th respondent entered appearance through learned Government Pleader for Labour. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents 1 to 4 Corporation. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner-workman was under suspension from 22.11.1983 and thereafter, he came to be removed from service on 15.7.1987. Indisputably, the removal order came to be set aside in I.D.No.12 of 1992. The workman and the respondents- Corporation challenged the award passed by the Labour Court by filing writ petitions and both the writ petitions ended in dismissal. The effect of the award is that the petitioner-workman is to be reinstated into service. Learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents submits that the pay of the petitioner has been re-fixed from time to time. The pay fixation proceedings have been placed on record. In that view of the matter, I deem it appropriate to set aside the order passed by the Labour Court and remand the matter to the Labour Court to ascertain the amounts payable to the petitioner-workman towards back wages taking into consideration the pay fixation proceedings placed on record as on this day. The Labour Court has also to examine whether the pay of the petitioner has been fixed in accordance with the circulars in force. Since it is stated that the petitioner is already retired from service, the Labour Court has to consider and dispose of the same on priority basis, as expeditiously as possible. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. __________ 04-03-2009 rkk