THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO.515 OF 2008 DATED 24TH DECEMBER, 2010 BETWEEN Ch.Prasad (Died) per L.R. … Petitioners And The Vice Chairman and Managing Director, Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation, Musheerabad, Hyderabad and Others. … Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO.515 OF 2008 O R D E R Partly successful in his endeavour before the Labour Court, Guntur, in I.D.No.252 of 1999, the petitioner came before this Court seeking the back wages and continuity of service denied to him by the Labour Court. The petitioner was a Conductor in the service of the Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation (APSRTC). He was removed from service under order dated 15.04.1996 in connection with certain cash and ticketing irregularities allegedly committed by him while conducting a service on 11.05.1995. Three charges were framed against him in this regard; the first being with regard to the shortfall of Rs.43.25 ps. in the remittance of bus cash, the second, the alleged reissue of two used tickets and the third, pertaining to irregularities in maintaining the S.R. Relevant to note, the petitioner admitted the first and third charges. He however denied the second charge as to the alleged reissue of used tickets which also found favour with the Labour Court. Faced with these facts, the Labour Court was of the opinion that the punishment of removal from service visited upon the petitioner was not proportionate to the proved charges. It accordingly directed his reinstatement in service without back wages and without continuity of service. He was further held disentitled to any monetary benefits from the date of his termination till the date of the Award. The APSRTC did not choose to challenge the Award in so far as the petitioner’s reinstatement is concerned. This Court therefore has no warrant to examine the validity of the relief granted to the petitioner. It may however be noted that the proved first charge against the petitioner was serious in nature and touched upon his lack of integrity. That being so, the approach of the Labour Court was lenient, to say the very least. In any event the petitioner, having got the relief of reinstatement in service, sought further benefits in the shape of back wages and continuity of service. It is stated by the learned counsel for the petitioner that his client died on 09.10.2009 and presently his widow, impleaded as petitioner No.2, is pursuing this litigation. Be that as it may. The aforestated facts establish that the petitioner was dealt with rather lightly by the Labour Court, in spite of it confirming the finding on the first charge. This Court is therefore not inclined to grant any further benefits to the petitioner. It is stated that the terminal benefits of the deceased petitioner have not been released to his widow owing to the pendency of this writ petition. Needless to state, there is no embargo placed on the APSRTC in releasing the admitted terminal benefits of an employee merely because of pending litigation. The APSRTC is at liberty to finalise and release such terminal benefits of the deceased petitioner to his widow. The Writ Petition is devoid of merit and is accordingly dismissed. No costs. -------------------------- SANJAY KUMAR,J 24TH DECEMBER, 2010 PGS/VGSR