THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO.1850 OF 2004 DATED 5TH FEBRUARY, 2010 BETWEEN The Depot Manager, APSRTC, Badwel Depot, Badwel, Cuddapah District. … Petitioner And The Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Anantapur Rep. by its Presiding Officer. And Another. … Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO.1850 OF 2004 ORDER: Aggrieved by the Award dated 27.12.2002 passed by the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Anantapur, in I.D. No.274 of 2000, the Depot Manager, Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation (APSRTC), Badwel Depot, Cuddapah District, preferred this writ petition. By the said Award, the APSRTC was directed to reinstate in service the second respondent herein with continuity of service along with half of the back wages. The second respondent herein was a Conductor in the service of the APSRTC. He was subjected to disciplinary proceedings under charge sheet dated 11.05.1999 with respect to his unauthorized absence from duty from 04.05.1999 to 10.05.1999. After conducting an enquiry, the APSRTC removed the second respondent from service under order dated 04.05.2000. His appeal and review against the said order met with failure. He therefore invoked Section 2-A(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 in I.D.No.274 of 2000 before the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Anantapur. It was the case of the second respondent that he had suffered from ill-health and was therefore absent from duties during the said period. He produced a sickness certificate issued by the Government Hospital, Cuddapah, in support of his plea. The APSRTC sought to support its action by relying on the subsequent absence of the second respondent during February, March and April, 2000. The Labour Court, having considered the material on record, came to the conclusion that the second respondent had been absent from duty owing to sickness, duly accepting the medical certificate produced by him. The Labour Court also rejected the attempt on the part of the APSRTC to rely upon the alleged subsequent absence of the second respondent during the year 2000. Holding that the punishment of removal from service was harsh and disproportionate to the charge of unauthorized absence for a period of seven days, the Labour Court set aside the removal order and directed the APSRTC to reinstate the second respondent in service as a Conductor with continuity of service along with 50% of the back wages. Hence, this writ petition by the APSRTC. The charge levelled against the second respondent was with regard to his unauthorized absence for a period of seven days in May, 1999. The Labour Court was correct in refusing to take into account the alleged past and subsequent absences of the second respondent from duty as the same were not the subject matter of the disciplinary proceedings. Therefore, basing on the material available before it, the Labour Court rightly came to the conclusion that for the absence of a period of seven days, the punishment imposed was shockingly disproportionate. The direction of the Labour to reinstate the first respondent in service therefore does not brook any interference. However, it is to be noticed that the Labour Court did not examine the entitlement of the second respondent to back wages. There is no discussion whatsoever on this aspect in the Award under challenge. Trite to state, award of back wages is no longer considered to be automatic or inevitable consequence of a direction of reinstatement. As pointed out by the Supreme Court, grant of back wages cannot be by way of a mechanical exercise and the Labour Court must necessarily examine the issue on facts. No such exercise is apparent from the Award under Challenge. It is relevant to note that by order dated 03.02.2004 this Court, while granting interim suspension of the Award under challenge except to the extent of reinstatement, directed the APSRTC to deposit 50% of the back wages awarded by the Labour Court, duly permitting the second respondent to withdraw the same without furnishing security. It is brought to my notice that the second respondent withdrew the amount so deposited on 24.09.2004. Though the second respondent withdrew the amount under the interim order of this Court, he did not choose to put in an appearance before this Court in person or through counsel. Be that as it may, the direction of the Labour Court to pay 50% of the back wages, without any supporting reasons, cannot be sustained. In the facts and circumstances of the case and as the second respondent has already withdrawn 25% of the back wages under the orders of this Court, I deem it fit and proper to limit the entitlement of the second respondent-workman to 25% of the back wages payable for the period that he remained out of service. The Award under challenge will stand modified to that extent and is confirmed in all other respects. The writ petition is accordingly allowed in part. No costs. ____________________ SANJAY KUMAR, J. 5TH FEBRUARY, 2010. VGSR