THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO.2567 OF 2004 DATED 4th FEBRUARY, 2010 BETWEEN: The Depot Manager, APSRTC, Kalwakurthy, Mahaboobnagar Dist. … Petitioner A n d Sri Hari And another. … Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO.2567 OF 2004 O R D E R The Officers of the Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation (for short, ‘the APSRTC’), challenge the Award dated 12.06.2003 passed by the Labour Court-III, Hyderabad, in I.D.No.11 of 2000. By the said Award, the Labour Court directed the APSRTC to reinstate the first respondent herein in service as a Driver; to absorb him as a regular Driver as per its rules after observing his performance and to treat him as being in service from 14.10.1999 till the date of his reinstatement. The Labour Court also held that the first respondent was entitled to back wages and other attendant benefits for the said period. The first respondent was appointed as a casual Driver in the APSRTC on 25.03.1999. On 02.07.1999, while the first respondent was reversing a bus in Badepally Bus Stand an accident occurred, whereby an old lady aged about 80 years came under the rear side of the bus and met with her death. The APSRTC issued Show Cause Notice dated 19.07.1999 to the first respondent calling upon him to show cause as to why his name should not be deleted from the selected list of Drivers. The first respondent submitted his explanation dated 02.08.1999 stating that he was not at fault for the accident. However, the APSRTC passed the order dated 04.08.1999 holding the first respondent responsible for the accident and disengaged him from duty. The first respondent preferred an Appeal to the Deputy Chief Traffic Manager, APSRTC, Mahabubnagar Region, who, by order dated 04.10.1999, directed the re-engagement of the first respondent as a casual Driver. In accordance therewith, the first respondent joined duty on 05.10.1999 but was again disengaged from duty orally with effect from 14.10.1999. Aggrieved by his oral termination from service, the first respondent approached the Labour Court invoking Section 2- A(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short, ‘the Act of 1947’) in I.D.No.11 of 2000. The APSRTC contested the case of the first respondent asserting that the accident occurred due to the negligent driving of the bus by him and in this process an old lady lost her life. However, no explanation was forthcoming from the APSRTC as to why the appellate order directing re-engagement of the first respondent in service had not been honoured. The Labour Court, upon examination of the material on record, opined that the action of the Depot Manager, APSRTC, Narayanpet, in orally disengaging the services of the first respondent was not valid in the light of the order dated 04.10.1999 passed by his superior, the Appellate Authority, directing his re-engagement. In the result, the Labour Court directed the APSRTC to reinstate the first respondent in service as a casual Driver and to absorb him as a regular Driver as per rules, in addition to granting him the reliefs of continuity of service, back wages and attendant benefits. Sri G.Venkateshwarlu, learned counsel, representing Sri C.Sunil Kumar Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for the APSRTC, reiterated that the facts on record demonstrate that the first respondent was culpable for the accident which occurred on 02.07.1999 owing to which an old lady lost her life. However, the learned counsel was unable to justify the action of the Depot Manager, Narayanpet Depot, in orally terminating the services of the first respondent ignoring the order of the Appellate Authority dated 04.10.1999 directing his re- engagement in service. Once the Appellate Authority exercised its discretion in the matter and on facts found that it was a fit case for directing re- engagement of the workman, it was not open to the Primary Authority to overlook or ignore such an order passed by the superior authority and act as per its own whims and fancies. The issue before the Labour Court was therefore not with regard to the culpability of the first respondent for the accident that had occurred but whether the Depot Manager, Narayanpet Depot, had acted correctly in orally disengaging the first respondent from service notwithstanding the order of the Appellate Authority. The Labour Court rightly understood the issue in its proper perspective and interfered in the matter. However, it was not for the Labour Court to direct absorption of the petitioner as a regular Driver as per rules. In granting such a direction, the Labour Court exceeded its brief. However, it is brought to my notice that the first respondent has been absorbed on regular basis thereafter, in spite of the interim suspension granted by this Court, and as such the direction of the Labour Court in this regard has more or less become otiose. Further, the Labour Court did not apply its mind in directing payment of full back wages. There is no discussion whatsoever on this aspect in the Award under challenge. The grant of back wages is no longer considered to be an automatic or inevitable consequence of a direction of reinstatement and the Court cannot mechanically grant back wages without examining the entitlement of the workman for back wages for the period that he remained out of service. No such exercise is apparent in the Award under challenge. Relevant to note, this Court by an order dated 12.02.2004 directed the APSRTC to deposit half (50%) of the back wages awarded by the Labour Court and thereafter by order dated 29.12.2004 permitted the first respondent to withdraw the same without furnishing security. In the light of the facts and circumstances obtaining in the case and in view of the first respondent having already withdrawn 50% of the back wages, I deem it appropriate to limit the entitlement of the first respondent to 50% of the back wages payable for the period commencing from 14.10.1999, when he was disengaged from service upto the date of his reinstatement, which he has already withdrawn as per the interim order of this Court. The Award under challenge is modified to the extent of limiting the first respondent’s entitlement to 50% of the back wages and stands confirmed in all other respects. The writ petition is accordingly allowed in part. There shall be no order as to costs. -------------------------- SANJAY KUMAR,J 4th FEBRUARY, 2010 PGS