THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO.17160 OF 2001 DATED 2ND DECEMBER, 2010 BETWEEN: A.Penta Reddy … Petitioner And The Additional Industrial Tribunal-cum-Additional Labour Court, Hyderabad, rep. by its Presiding Officer, Chandra Vihar Complex, I Floor, M.J.Road, Hyderabad. And Another. … Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO.17160 OF 2001 O R D E R The Additional Industrial Tribunal-cum-Additional Labour Court, Hyderabad, by its Award dated 14.07.2000 in I.D.No.111 of 1995 directed the reinstatement of the petitioner in the service of the Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation (APSRTC) with continuity of service but without back wages and attendant benefits. Aggrieved by the denial of these reliefs, he is before this Court. The petitioner joined the service of the APSRTC as a Conductor in the year 1967. He was promoted as an Assistant Depot Clerk/ Controller in the year 1987. He was subjected to disciplinary proceedings on six independent charges under charge sheet dated 19.01.1993 and ultimately removed from service under the proceedings dated 03.07.1993. Aggrieved thereby, he invoked the jurisdiction of the Labour Court by way of the subject I.D. Upon examination of the material on record, the Labour Court came to the conclusion that none of the charges levelled against the petitioner were proved. It accordingly directed his reinstatement in service but with limited benefits. Sri Praveen Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, contended that the Labour Court ought not to have denied attendant benefits and back wages to his client in the light of the favourable findings returned by it in so far as the charges levelled against him were concerned. Sri K.Madhava Reddy, learned standing counsel for the APSRTC, on the other hand, contended that the Labour Court had rightly denied attendant benefits and back wages to the petitioner given the facts and circumstances of the case. He therefore sought for confirmation of the Award. It is relevant to note that the APSRTC did not choose to challenge the subject Award in so far as the reliefs granted are concerned. Pursuant to the said Award, the petitioner was reinstated in service in the year 2000. In effect, he was denied employment from January, 1993, when he was placed under suspension upto his reinstatement in the year 2000. The petitioner in his claim petition before the Labour Court specifically averred that ever since the date of his removal he remained unemployed as he could not get alternate employment in spite of his best efforts. The APSRTC however did not choose to adduce any evidence in rebuttal of this averment. As per the law laid down by the Supreme Court in J.K.SYNTHETICS LTD. V/s. K.P.AGRAWAL [1] , the burden was upon the Road Transport Corporation to disprove this averment made by the petitioner on oath in his pleadings before the Labour Court. It is also relevant to note that the petitioner was a regular employee and had been in the service of the APSRTC for a very long time, having been appointed as long back as in the year 1967. In view of the findings of the Labour Court that the charges levelled against the petitioner were not proved, which have attained finality owing to lack of challenge by the APSRTC, the Labour Court was not correct in denying the petitioner attendant benefits and also back wages in their entirety. The APSRTC shall therefore extend to the petitioner notional attendant benefits upto the date of his reinstatement and also pay 25% (twenty five per cent) of the back wages for the period that he remained out of its service. The petitioner shall be entitled to full monetary benefits, including attendant benefits, from the date of his reinstatement. The Award under challenge shall stand modified to this extent. The Writ Petition is accordingly allowed in part. No order as to costs. -------------------------- SANJAY KUMAR,J 2ND DECEMBER, 2010 PGS/VGSR THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO.17160 OF 2001 2ND DECEMBER, 2010 [1] (2007) 2 SCC 433