THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.1204 of 2004 ORDER: The petitioner was employed as a Conductor in Banswada Depot of the Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation. A charge sheet was issued against him alleging that he remained absent from 05.08.1999 onwards without any leave. The charge sheet was not served upon the petitioner on the ground that the door was locked. Ex parte enquiry was conducted and ultimately, through an order, dated 29.10.1999, respondent No.1 removed the petitioner from service. After lapse of more than one year, the petitioner filed an appeal before the Appellate Authority. The appeal was dismissed as time barred. Thereupon, the petitioner filed I.D.No.13 of 2001 before the Labour Court-II, Hyderabad. Through its award, dated 19.08.2003, the Labour Court set aside the order of removal, directed reinstatement of the petitioner with continuity of service, but without back wages and imposed punishment of deferment of two annual increments with cumulative effect. The petitioner feels aggrieved by the punishment imposed against him and denial of back wages. Heard Sri K.M.Mahender Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri C.Sunil Kumar Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for the respondents. It is not in dispute that the petitioner remained absent unauthorisedly for quite a long time. He was not even available to receive the show cause notice nor did he participate in the domestic enquiry. Naturally, that has given rise to the removal of the petitioner from service. After lapse of considerable time, the petitioner approached the Labour Court under Section 2-A (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short ‘the Act’). Even after finding that the petitioner is guilty of acts of misconduct, the Labour Court exercised its discretion under Section 11-A of the Act and granted the relief as indicated above. The petitioner claims the relief of back wages and assails the punishment imposed against him. This Court is not inclined to grant the relief of back wages, since the petitioner did not dispute the fact that he remained unauthorisedly absent for quite a long time. So far as the punishment imposed by the Labour Court directing withholding of two annual increments with cumulative effect is concerned, it is felt that the same drastically affects the emoluments of the petitioner for the rest of his career. While the petitioner deserves some punishment for his unauthorized absence, it is felt that withholding of one increment with cumulative effect would meet the ends of justice. Therefore, the writ petition is partly allowed, modifying the punishment imposed against the petitioner to be the one of withholding of one increment with cumulative effect. It is also directed that the petitioner shall not be entitled for any monetary benefit on account of such modification and he shall have the benefit of re-fixation of salary prospectively. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________________ L.NARASIMHA REDDY,J Dt: 18.11.2010. kdl