THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU WRIT PETITION NO.4363 OF 2005 ORDER: This Writ Petition is directed against the award made by the Labour Court, Guntur in I.D.No.175/2001 Dated 03.09.2004, whereunder while answering the petition under section 2-A (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, the order of removal of the petitioner was set aside and the petitioner was directed to be reinstated into service without backwages and without continuity of service. Petitioner is the workman and the 1st respondent is the management. It appears, the petitioner was appointed as conductor in the year 1986 and had put in more than ‘12’ years of service as on the date of the alleged misconduct. While so, basing on the complaint given by some members of the Employees Union Bus Depot, he was placed under Depot Spare for a period of five months and 24 days. Later on, the petitioner was placed on suspension by order dated 11.09.1998 and issued with charge sheet dated 11.09.1998. After conducting a detailed enquiry into the charges leveled against the petitioner, ultimately, the disciplinary authority passed an order dated 07.05.1999, removing the petitioner from service. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner filed appeal before the Deputy Chief Traffic Manager, Ongole, and the said appeal was rejected. Thereafter, Review petition was filed and it was also rejected. Thereafter, the petitioner filed I.D.No.175 of 2001, under Section 2- A (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short ‘the I.D.Act’), before the Labour Court at Guntur. Before the Labour Court, though no oral evidence was adduced on behalf of either of the parties, Exs.M1 to M24 were marked on behalf of the management. The Labour Court, after detailed consideration of the matter, held that all the charges are one and the same and they are held proved, but the punishment of removal is not justified and, accordingly, passed the impugned award dated 03.09.2004, setting aside the order of removal and directing reinstatement of the petitioner without backwages and without continuity of service. Aggrieved thereby, the present writ petition is filed. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the past service of the petitioner was not bad and the charges framed against the petitioner are trivial in nature and, therefore, denying the benefits of continuity of service and backwages is unwarranted. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondents, strenuously supported the impugned award. I have given my earnest consideration to the respective submissions made by the learned counsel on either side and perused the impugned award and other material made available on record. From a perusal of the impugned order, it is found that except the charges framed against the petitioner, no other allegations are leveled against the petitioner. The Labour Court, while holding that the charges are proved, may be in view of the nature of the charges, ordered reinstatement of the petitioner into service without backwages and without continuity of service. Even if the charges are proved, as held by the Labour Court, the same may not warrant denial of continuity of service, unless and until some past instances of the petitioner behaving in the same manner are found. No such past instances have been referred to in the impugned award. Apart from this, there is no dispute that the petitioner had rendered 12 years of unblemished service and that, for the first time, he has committed the alleged misconduct. In these circumstances, the Labour Court ought not to have denied continuity of service, while ordering reinstatement of the petitioner. Therefore, it would be just and proper to modify the impugned award as under: “The order of removal from service passed by the 1st respondent-management is set aside and the 1st respondent-management is directed to reinstate the petitioner-workman into service with continuity of service, but without any backwages. Further it is made clear that the increments for the period the petitioner was out of employment shall be counted notionally and the arrears etc., if any, shall be paid within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.” With the above modification, the writ petition is disposed of. No order as to costs. _______________ C.V.RAMULU,J 24.01.2011 ksp/v v