THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR W.P.No.14342 of 1997 Date: 29.10.2010 Between: The District Manager (now redesignated as Depot Manager) A.P.S.R.T.C., Bus depot, Nizamabad. … Petitioner AND K. Rajamouli and another … Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR W.P. No.14342 of 1997 ORDER: The Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation (APSRTC) through its Depot Manager, Nizamabad, assails the award dated 03.07.1996 passed by the Labour Court-II, Hyderabad in I.D.No.466 of 1992. By the said award, the Labour Court set aside the punishment of removal from service imposed upon the first respondent-workman by the APSRTC and directed his reinstatement in service with effect from the date of filing of the I.D. along with 50% back wages from that date till the date of reinstatement. By order dated 11.07.1997 this Court, taking note of the fact that the first respondent-workman had already been reinstated pursuant to the impugned award, granted interim stay only in respect of the payment of back wages. The writ petition was initially dismissed for non-prosecution on 16.02.2010 and a petition was filed by the APSRTC seeking its restoration. In spite of adjourning the matter time and again to enable the learned counsel, Sri K. Subhash Reddy, who had entered his vakalat for the first respondent-workman to appear, he failed to do so. Accordingly, the restoration petition was ordered on 07.09.2010. Thereafter, when the matter came up for final hearing on 28.10.2010, the learned Standing Counsel for the APSRTC was heard on merits, but yet again, there was no representation for the first respondent-workman. The case was accordingly adjourned to 29.10.2010, but the same situation continues, leaving no option to this Court but to proceed ex parte against the first respondent-workman. Sri Anand Shinde, learned counsel representing the APSRTC, submitted that the impugned award suffered from an error apparent on the face of the record as the Labour Court did not disclose the reasons as to why it found the punishment imposed upon the first respondent- workman to be disproportionate. He further contended that the Labour Court was not justified in granting 50% back wages from the date of filing of the I.D. Perusal of the impugned award reflects that the first respondent, being a conductor in the APSRTC was subjected to disciplinary proceedings in connection with certain cash and ticket irregularities detected while he was conducting the bus service between Nizamabad and Nizamsagar on 18.10.1969. After following the due procedure, he was removed from service by order dated 09.07.1970. His appeal and thereafter, his review met with failure. Having kept quiet for over two decades, the first respondent-workman invoked the jurisdiction of the Labour Court under Section 2-A (2) of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 only in the year 1991 by way of the subject I.D. Relevant to note, there is no recital in the first respondent’s claim statement that he was not employed elsewhere during the long period that he remained out of the service of the APSRTC. The Labour Court, having concurred with the findings recorded in the enquiry against the first respondent-workman, thought it fit to interfere on the ground of proportionality of the punishment. No reasons, however, are forthcoming from the award as to what prevailed upon the Labour Court to reach this conclusion. As pointed out by the Supreme Court in Regional Manager, UPSRTC, Etawah and others v. Hoti Lal and another[1], the Labour Court necessarily has to record the reasons as to why it finds the punishment to be disproportionate as this power is reserved for exceptional cases. The award under challenge therefore falls short of this expected norm. Further, in the absence of a pleading on the part of the first respondent- workman that he was not gainfully employed and keeping in mind the long delay on his part in approaching the Court, the Labour Court was not justified in awarding back wages. Though such delay would normally be taken into account for moulding the relief, the Labour Court ought not to have given financial benefits in view thereof. The award under challenge is accordingly modified to the extent of setting aside the direction with regard to payment of 50% back wages from the date of filing of the I.D. till the date of reinstatement. The award shall stand confirmed only insofar as the direction of reinstatement is concerned, which was given effect to even prior to the filing of this case. The writ petition is accordingly allowed in part to the extent indicated above. No order as to costs. __________________ SANJAY KUMAR, J Date: 29.10.2010 Isn [1] 2003 LAB.I.C.-757