HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA WRIT PETITION No. 24751 of 2006 DATED 18th October, 2011 BETWEEN The Depot Manager, APSRTC, Pulivendula, Kadapa Dist …….Petitioner and R.Reddaiah and anr …… Respondents HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA WRIT PETITION No. 24751 of 2006 ORDER: Challenging the Award dated 28.4.2006 passed by the second respondent-Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Ananthapur, in I.D.No. 170 of 2003, the Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation (APSRTC) filed the present Writ Petition. The first respondent-workman was appointed as a Conductor in the APSRTC in the year 1981. He was subjected to disciplinary proceedings on 31.3.2002 in respect of certain cash and ticket irregularities said to have been committed by him while he was conducting the bus service on the route, Pulivendula to Vempally. After following the due procedure and conducting due enquiry, he was removed from service by order dated 23.8.2002. The appeal and thereafter review preferred by the first respondent-workman stood rejected. Therefore, he invoked the provisions of Section 2-A(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 in I.D.No. 170 of 2003 before the second respondent-Labour Court,Anahtapur. The Labour Court, upon elaborate consideration of the evidence on record, partly allowed the ID directing reinstatement of the first respondent-workman in service with continuity of service attendant benefits, but with 50% of the back wages. Hence this Writ Petition. Heard both sides. Perused the case file. It is the contention of the petitioner- APSRTC that the grant of 50% of the back wages was unsustainable on facts. It is its further contention that the adverse conclusion of the Labour Court against the findings of the domestic enquiry is not borne out by the record. The established facts on record would disclose that the first respondent-workman while conducting the bus service on the relevant date though collected the requisite fare of Rs.3/- each from a batch of three passengers, failed to issue tickets, which constituted a misconduct committed by him. In his spot explanation, Ex.M.3, he stated that owing to ill-health he was not in a position to find out whether he had issued tickets to all the passengers due to the effect of the tablet which he consumed at that time and he was not in full consciousness. The same statement was reflected in his explanation Ex.M.8 submitted against the charge sheet. Further the evidence on record would disclose that at the time of check, there were no other passengers, except the three passengers, who were found boarded the bus by mistake and due to midnight and darkness, they could not get down immediately and when they tried to get down at the next stage, the checking officials entered the bus for checking. The statement of one of the passengers, Ex.M.10 was quite contrary to the statement of other passengers at Ex.M.4. Further, the tickets said to have been issued to the said passengers were not filed in Court for enquiry and no reason was forthcoming. Considering the above, and the fact that the workman was aged about of 53 years as on the date of checking, the Labour Court found the punishment of removal imposed upon the workman was unreasonable and as such unsustainable. No ground is therefore made out to interfere with the direction of the Labour Court to reinstate the workman in service. As regards the issue of back wages is concerned, the Labour Court exercised its discretion and directed the APSRTC to pay 50% of the back wages to the workman. It is well settled principle of law that the grant of back wages is no longer considered to be an automatic or inevitable consequence of a direction of reinstatement. (See: J.K.Synthetics Limited Vs. K.P.Agrawal {(2007) 2 SCC 433}. The workman shall plead in his peititon before the Labour court that he is not gainfully employed during the period he is out of employment of the APSRTC. Then, the burden shifts on the APSRTC to disprove the same by adducing cogent evidence. Perusal of the Award does not disclose that the said aspect while granting 50% of the back wages to the workman was not taken into consideration. However, the Labour court granted 50% of the back wages while ordering reinstatement of the workman. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the considered view that awarding 25% of the back wages instead of 50% of back wages to the workman would meet the ends of justice. The Writ Petition is allowed in part and the impugned Award is modified to the extent of granting 25% of back wages instead of 50% of back wages to the workman while confirming the rest of the impugned award. There shall be no order as to costs. --------------------------------------------- JUSTICE ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA Dated 18th October, 2011. Msnro