THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO.2040 OF 2002 DATED 22ND APRIL, 2010 BETWEEN The Depot Manager, A.P.S.R.T.C., Warangal-I Depot, Warangal District. … Petitioner and P.Nagaiah, Ex.Conductor, H.No.2-4-890, Venkatarama Nagar, Old Bus Depot, Hanamkonda. And Another. … Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO.2040 OF 2002 ORDER: The Depot Manager, Warangal, of the Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation (APSRTC) challenges the Award dated 25.06.2001 passed by the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Warangal, in I.D.No.132 of 1998. By the said Award, the Labour Court set aside the order dated 17.06.1997 passed by the APSRTC removing the first respondent from service and directed his reinstatement in service as a Conductor with continuity of service, full back wages and all attendant benefits. At the time of admission of the writ petition, this Court by order dated 05.02.2002 took note of the fact that the first respondent had already been reinstated in service and granted interim suspension of the operation of the Award so far as it related to payment of back wages subject to the condition that the APSRTC deposit the entire amount of back wages awarded by the Labour Court, permitting the first respondent to withdraw half of the deposited amount without furnishing security. The first respondent entered into the service of the APSRTC as a Conductor in the year 1980. A check was made on 29.12.1996 while the first respondent was conducting the bus service en route Adilabad- Hanamakonda. He was subjected to disciplinary proceedings in respect of certain cash and ticket irregularities detected therein. The charge memo dated 29.12.1996 was served upon the first respondent on 07.01.1997. The charge sheet dated 08.01.1997 specified six charges and the first respondent was suspended from service. After conducting an enquiry into the matter the APSRTC removed the first respondent from service by order dated 17.06.1997. His appeal and review against the same met with failure. He therefore invoked the jurisdiction of the Labour Court under Section 2-A(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The Labour Court recorded a finding that the first respondent was given fair and reasonable opportunity during the domestic enquiry. Having held so, the Labour Court went on to re-appreciate the evidence and came to the conclusion that the passengers’ statements relied upon during the enquiry were not worthy of credence as the first respondent’s signatures had been forged on the said statements. In this regard, the explanation submitted by the first respondent (Ex.M.8) is relevant. Therein, the first respondent stated as follows: ‘………… I rejected to attest their statements since the checking officer forced me a lot to attest as follows: “These statements are correct and obtained in my presence”. But at last I simply signed on such papers since the statements (relating to charge No.3 and 4) containing the matter is not fact. Further it is to submit that the passenger’s statement relating the charge No.2 was not obtained in front of myself and I never signed on such statement. Hence, the same should treated as non genuine statement and put to strict proof of the same.’ In the light of the first respondent’s own admission as to his having signed some of the passengers’ statements, the opinion of the Labour Court that all the passengers’ statements bore forged signatures of the first respondent is unsustainable. Further, as pointed out by the Supreme Court, it is not in every case that the Labour Court would be entitled to re-appreciate the evidence. The Labour Court should form an opinion that the case before it is a fit and proper one for such re-appreciation of evidence. In the present case, having held that the first respondent had been given due opportunity during the enquiry, the Labour Court did not venture to explain as to what prompted it to re-appreciate the evidence in the manner that it has done. In such circumstances, the finding of the Labour Court that the charges framed against the first respondent were baseless cannot be countenanced. This finding was obviously inspired by the exercise of the Labour Court which led it to the conclusion that the signatures of the first respondent had been forged on all the passengers’ statements. The first respondent is stated to have withdrawn half of the amount deposited by the APSRTC as permitted by this Court under the interim order. He has however not chosen to put in an appearance in the matter either in person or through counsel. As stated supra, the exercise of the Labour Court appears to be legally unsustainable, both on facts and in law. Normally, the matter would require re-examination by the Labour Court in accordance with law. But, this Court is constrained to note that the first respondent was suspended from service as long back as in the year 1997, subjected to disciplinary proceedings and the matter turned full circle when he was reinstated in service pursuant to the impugned Award. In the light of these facts stretching over more than a decade, the matter requires to be given a quietus. I therefore do not deem it appropriate to remand the matter at this stage to the Labour Court for fresh consideration with regard to the reliefs of reinstatement, continuity of service etc. granted to the first respondent. It is however to be noted that there is no discussion whatsoever in the Award under challenge as to why the first respondent was awarded full back wages. Trite to state, payment of back wages is no longer considered an automatic and inevitable consequence of a direction for reinstatement in service. Certain other factors would have to be considered by the Labour Court such as the nature of the employment, the reason for directing reinstatement, the length of service rendered by the employee, the factum of gainful employment of the employee in the interregnum etc. The Labour Court having failed to enquire into these matters ought not to have awarded full back wages merely because it found the charges levelled against the first respondent to be baseless. In the result, the Award under challenge is modified to the extent of limiting the first respondent’s entitlement to back wages to fifty percent (50%), being the amount already withdrawn by him pursuant to the interim order. The APSRTC is at liberty to take necessary steps for withdrawing the balance fifty percent (50%) of the amount deposited by it before the Labour Court. The Award under challenge stands modified to the extent indicated above and shall stand confirmed in all other respects. The writ petition is partly allowed. No costs. ____________________ SANJAY KUMAR, J. 22ND APRIL, 2010. VGSR/PGS