IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY THE FOURTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 19628 of 2007 Between: Mohammed Gaffar S/o.Rahemm APSRTC, Suryapet Bus Depot Suryapet, Nalgonda District ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Depot Manager, APSRTC, Suryapet Bus Depot Suryapet, Nalgonda District 2 The Govt of Andhra Pradesh, rep.by secretary to Government labour Employment training & Factories (Lab.I) Department secretariat, Hyderabad .....RESPONDENT(S) 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 certiorary by calling the records relating to ID.No.50/05 dated 21.8.2006 on the file of Labour court III ,Hyderabad as published in G.O.Rt.No.2179 Labour Employment Training & Factories (Lab.I) Department dated 19.10.2006 on the file of the Deputy secretary to Government and quash the same in so far as not granting the back wages and attendant benefits for not treating the suspension period from 3.11.2003 to 26.6.2004 as on duty and by holding that the petitioner is entitled for full back wages attendant benefits and for treating the suspension period from 3.11.2003 to 26.6.2004 as on duty. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.M.VENKAT RAM REDDY Counsel for the Respondent No.: SMT.B.G.UMA DEVI The Court made the following : ORDER: The petitioner is appointed as a driver in the APSRTC. On 22.10.2003, he was driving the bus, on the route from Hanamkonda to Suryapet. On the way, an accident occurred, resulting in the death of a pillion rider, on a bicycle, involving the bus. Charge sheet was issued to the petitioner, framing necessary charges. The petitioner submitted his explanation. On a consideration of the explanation, departmental enquiry was conducted. The 1st respondent passed an order, dated 26.06.2004, directing removal of the petitioner from service. An appeal preferred by him before the Divisional Manager was dismissed. The petitioner filed I.D.No.50 of 2005 in the Labour Court-III, Hyderabad. Through its award, dated 21.08.2006, the Labour Court had set aside the order of removal and directed reinstatement of the petitioner with continuity of service, but without back wages. It was also directed that the period of suspension between 03.11.2003 and 26.06.2004 shall not be counted for any purpose. The petitioner feels aggrieved by the award passed by the Labour Court, insofar as it denied back wages and directed that the period of suspension be not counted for any purpose. Sri M.Venkat Ram Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that once the Labour Court recorded a finding to the effect that the charges levelled against the petitioner are not proved and the order of removal from service is set aside, the only alternative was to direct reinstatement with back wages and all attendant benefits. He contends that the direction, as regards the period of suspension, cannot be supported either on facts, or in law. Smt.B.G.Uma Devi, learned Standing Counsel for the 1st respondent, on the other hand, submits that, on account of the rash and negligent driving on the part of the petitioner, an innocent person died and the directions issued by the Labour Court, be it as regards the back wages or period of suspension, are balancing measures. The disciplinary authority, namely, the 1st respondent, passed an order directing removal of the petitioner from service, after holding departmental enquiry. On the administrative appeal, being dismissed by the Divisional Manager, the petitioner approached the Labour Court by filing I.D.No.50 of 2005. A perusal of the award passed by the Labour Court discloses that a clear finding was recorded to the effect that the charges framed against the petitioner are not proved and on that basis, it has set aside the order, dated 26.06.2004, passed by the 1st respondent, directing removal of the petitioner from service. The finding recorded by the Labour Court has become final, inasmuch as the 1st respondent did not assail the same. It is not as if the Labour Court had extended any compassion on benefit of doubt in directing the reinstatement of the petitioner. The denial of back wages to the petitioner cannot be found fault with, inasmuch as the record does not disclose that the petitioner had either pleaded or proved that he was not gainfully employed, during the period for which he was out of service. A direction for payment of back wages would totally depend upon a finding as regards gainful employment of the person concerned. Having denied the back wages to the petitioner, the Tribunal proceeded to direct that the period of suspension from 03.11.2003 to 26.06.2004 shall not be counted for any purpose. Such a direction does not accord with the rest of the award. If the very removal of the petitioner from service was treated as illegal, there is no reason why the petitioner must be subjected to disadvantage for the period during which he was placed under suspension. If at all, anything, the Tribunal ought to have directed that the period of suspension must not only enure to the benefit of the petitioner, but also resulted in payment of difference of salary. The direction that the period shall not be counted for any purpose is not supported either on facts, or in law. Hence, the Writ Petition is allowed in part, setting aside that part of the direction in the award, which directed the period of suspension between 03.11.2003 to 26.06.2004, shall not be counted for any purpose. It is also directed that the said period shall be counted for the purpose of service as well as increments for the petitioner. In other respects, the award shall stand as it is. There shall be no order as to costs. ____________________ Dt.04.03.2008 L.NARASIMHA REDDY, J GJ