IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE ELEVENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION Nos. 27069 OF 1999 AND 2285 OF 2000 WRIT PETITION NO : 27069 of 1999 Between: R.R.Reddy S/o. Manikya Reddy R/o.4-93, Sneha Nagar Colony, Street No.8, Habsiguda, Hyderabad. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 A.P.State Road Transport Corporation Rep. by its Managing Director, Mushirabad, Hyderabad-20 2 A.P.State Road Transport Corporation Rep. by its Divisional Manager Secunderabad. .....RESPONDENT(S) Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the aﬃdavit ﬁled herein the High Court will be pleased to call for the records from the respondent and issue an appropriate Writ, Order or Direction, Particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring that the action of respondents in not ﬁxing the pay of petitioner in the revised pay scales, in pursuance of the Award in I.D.No.65 of 1997, dated 24-3-1999, published on 23-6-1999 as illegal, unjust, contrary to law, in violation of principles of natural justice, without appreciation of contents of the Circular No.PD-91/1999, dt.30-9-1999 in a proper perspective and violative of Articles 14,16 & 21 of the Constitution of India; and grant all consequential benefits WRIT PETITION NO : 2285 of 2000 Between: R.R. Reddy, S/o. Manikya Reddy, R/o. 4-93, Street No. 8, Habsiguda, Hyderabad. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 Additional Industrial Tribunal- Cum- Additional Labour Court Rep. by its Presiding Officer, Chandravihar Bldg.., 1st floor , M.J. Road, Hyderabad. 2 The Depot Manager, A.P. State Road Transport Corporation Uppal, R.R. District, Hyderabad. .....RESPONDENT(S) Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the aﬃdavit ﬁled herein the High Court will be pleased to call for the records from the respondent 1 and issue an appropriate writ, order or direction , particularly one in the nature of Writ of Certiorari and quash the Award passed by the 1st respondent in I.D. No. 65 of 1997 dated 24-3-1999, published on 23-6-1999, in so far as denying the back wages to the petitioner as illegal, unjust , contrary to law and perverse; and consequently grant full back wages to the petitioner; and pass such other order or orders as deemed ﬁt and proper under the circumstances of the case. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.A.K.JAYAPRAKASH RAO Counsel for the Respondents: MR.K.MADHAVA REDDY The Court made the following : COMMON ORDER: Inasmuch as the petitioner in both the writ petitions is one and the same and the issues raised are interrelated, they are heard and disposed of together by this common order. For the purpose of disposal of the matters, I refer to the facts narrated in Writ Petition No. 2285 of 2000. In Writ Petition No. 2285 of 2000, the petitioner who is a Controller/Assistant Depot Clerk in the Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation (for short, ‘the Corporation’) working in Uppal Depot of Ranga Reddy District questions the award of the Additional Industrial Tribunal-cum-Additional Labour Court, Hyderabad dated 24-03-1999 passed in I.A No. 65 of 1997, to the extent of not awarding back wages. The petitioner herein joined the service of the Corporation in the year 1970 as a Conductor. After working for about 17 years as such, he was promoted to the post of Controller/Assistant Depot Clerk in the year 1987. It is his case that though he rendered unblemished service, he was removed by order dated 23-05-1997 on the alleged proven misconduct against him. While he was working as Assistant Depot Clerk, alleging that he has not maintained date wise way bills and the accounts for sale of bus passes and also on the ground that he has not accounted an amount of Rs.3818/- which he had realised on account of sale of metro liner and metro express bus passes on 04-06- 1996, disciplinary proceedings were initiated by the 2nd respondent. The petitioner was charged for the following two charges: “Charge No.1: For your failure to follow the procedure in vogue and instructions of the Corporation in force on proper maintenance of separate ADC wise and date wise way bills and the accounts of sale of bus passes in an orderly manner in regard to sale of Metroliner and Metro Express passes on 4-6-96 which constitutes misconduct in terms of Reg.28 (xxxii) of APSRTC Employees (Conduct) Reg. 1963. Charge No.2: For your failure to remit the amount to the tune of Rs.3818.00 at depot on the same day towards the sale of Metro Liner and Metro Express passes on 4-6-96, thus mis-appropriated the same amount which constitutes misconduct in terms of Reg.28 (x) of APSRTC Employees (Conduct) Reg.1963.” With reference to the above said charges in the disciplinary proceedings, the petitioner has ﬁled his explanation denying the charges framed against him and it is the case of the petitioner that in spite of the same, the Enquiry Oﬃcer recorded ﬁndings against him holding that both the charges were proved. Based on the ﬁndings recorded by the Enquiry Oﬃcer, he was removed from service by order dated 23-05-1997. As against the said order of removal, the petitioner raised an industrial dispute by ﬁling an application under Section 2-A(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 in I.D No. 65 of 1997 before the Labour Court. Though no oral evidence was let in on behalf of the parties, but however, on behalf of the Corporation documentary evidence was marked as Exs.M-1 to M-28. The Labour Court after appreciating the evidence on record found that both the charges framed against the petitioner were not proved and consequently while setting aside the order of removal dated 23-0-5-1997 ordered for reinstatement of the petitioner with continuity of service and attendant benefits, but without back wages. It is the case of the petitioner that both the charges framed against him were false and in spite of supporting material evidence, he was illegally removed from service with eﬀect from 23-05-1997. It is also submitted that he was not gainfully employed in any other employment after he was removed on 23-05-1997 and in spite of the fact that he has discharged his initial burden and although the Labour Court has recorded a ﬁnding that both the charges are not proved, without any valid reason he was deprived of the back wages. Inasmuch as both the charges are not proved, he is entitled for the back wages. Sri A.K. Jayaprakash Rao, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner in support of his arguments has placed reliance on the judgment of a Division Bench of this Court in Writ Appeal No. 583 of 2007 dated 26-07- 2007 and another judgment of this Court passed in Writ Appeal No. 1711 of 2003 dated 29-10-2003. On the other hand, the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents submitted that as there was no regular Depot Clerk, the petitioner and another person by name R.S. Reddy who was also working as Assistant Depot Clerk were incharge of bus passes. It is submitted that they have not maintained the way bills and the petitioner has not accounted for the cash of Rs.3,818/- which he had collected on the sale of bus passes of metro liner and metro express busses on 04- 06-1996 for which he was charge sheeted. It is further submitted that having regard to the gravity of the charges framed against the petitioner, the Labour Court rightly did not award any back wages. In support of his argument, learned Standing Counsel placed reliance on the judgment of the apex Court in J.K. Synthetics Ltd. vs. K.P Agrawal[1]. Before proceeding further with the matter, I brieﬂy refer to the charges framed against the petitioner. So far as the ﬁrst charge is concerned, it is alleged that the petitioner failed to follow the procedure in vogue and the instructions of the Corporation for maintenance of separate way bills EDC wise and date wise with regard to the sale of bus passes of metro liner and metro express busses. As such, it amounts to misconduct within the meaning of Regulation 28 (xxxii) of the APSRTC Employees (Conduct) Regulations, 1963. Though the petitioner has denied the charge, in the explanation ﬁled by him, it has come in the evidence that in the absence of the regular Depot Clerk, the petitioner who was working as the Assistant Depot Clerk at the relevant time was looking after the work relating to issuance of bus passes along with another Assistant Depot Clerk by name R.S. Reddy. It is also in the evidence on record that the other Assistant Depot Clerk R.S. Reddy was attending in the morning shift from 8.00 to 14.00 hours and the petitioner was working in the second shift from 13.00 to 19.00 hours. It is the case of the petitioner that on the crucial date i.e., on 04-09-1996, he did not sell any bus passes and no amount was handed over to him by the said R.S. Reddy. In view of the above said evidence, the Tribunal with regard to the ﬁrst charge has categorically found that no written instructions were placed on record and it was also not stated that no body has given any oral instructions to follow any particular procedure with regard to the sale of bus passes and remittance of sale proceeds. Even with regard to the second charge of remittance of the amount of Rs.3,818/- by sale of bus passes of metro liner and metro express busses, it has come in the evidence that the said R.S. Reddy did not handover the amount of bus passes sold by him on 04- 06-1996 in his ﬁrst shift so as to account for the same. As such, in view of the defence put forth by the petitioner, the only question which fell for consideration with regard to the second charge before the Tribunal was whether the other Assistant Depot Clerk has handed over that amount to the petitioner on the aforesaid date. The Tribunal while appreciating the evidence available on record has come to the conclusion that there was no record to prove that the petitioner has sold any passes on that particular date and there was also no evidence to prove that the said R.S Reddy has handed over the amount of Rs.3,818/- to the petitioner. Further R.S Reddy has stated to the following effect: “On 7-6-1996 the STI Sri H. Subrahmanyam advised me at 18.00 hrs. to remit the cash of sale of Metro liner/Metro Express cards sold by me on 4-6-96. So on 7-6-96 I remitted Rs.3,818/- at Depot.” Taking the said statement of R.S Reddy into account, the Tribunal in the absence of any evidence to the eﬀect that the petitioner has sold any passes and as the amount of Rs.3,818/- was not handed over to the petitioner, held that the said charge is not proved. But, however, without recording any reasons for denial of back wages, merely ordered for reinstatement with continuity of service and attendant beneﬁts but without back wages. There is no straightjacket formula for award of back wages. The grant of back wages will depend on the discretion of the Court, length of service, whether the charges levelled are serious or not or there is any motive behind the framing of the charges etc. Though in this case, as regards the nature of the charges, it cannot be said that they are either trivial or motivated and designed so as to dispense with the services of the petitioner, but, however, at the same time, having initiated the proceedings on the ground that the petitioner has not followed the instructions and the procedure in vogue for maintenance of ADC wise and date wise way bills with regard to the accounts on the sale of bus passes and having framed such a charge, the Management failed to produce any such written instructions in this regard. It is also not stated whether there are any instructions with regard to the procedure to be followed. Even with regard to the amount of Rs.3,818/- not accounted by the petitioner, it is clearly held that the said amount was not collected by the petitioner and there are no records to prove that any bus passes were sold by the petitioner on 04-06- 1996 so as to account for the same. Further, in spite of the stand of the petitioner that the amount was not passed on to him on 04-06-1996 by the other Assistant Depot Clerk R.S Reddy who was working in the ﬁrst shift, proceedings were initiated against the petitioner and he was kept out of service for no fault of him. The petitioner in paragraph 11 of the claim petition stated that ever since the date of removal from service, he remained unemployed and he could not get any alternative appointment in spite of his best eﬀorts. Taking the same into account and also the over all facts and circumstances of the case, in the normal course with regard to the back wages, the matter would be remitted for fresh consideration, but looking at the fact that the order of termination was passed on 23-05-1997 and the award of the Tribunal was passed in 1999 and the matter is pending before this Court for about eight long years, I deem it appropriate to put a quietus to the litigation. In the facts and circumstances of the case, interest of justice would be met if 50%of the back wages are awarded to the petitioner for the period he was out of service. Accordingly, Writ Petition No. 2285 of 2000 is allowed in part and the relief granted by the Tribunal is conﬁrmed and in addition to the same, it is held that the petitioner is entitled to 50% of the back wages from the date of his removal till the date of reinstatement. The amount of back wages shall be paid within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No order as to costs. So far as Writ Petition No. 27069 of 1999 is concerned, it is ﬁled by the petitioner by way of mandamus to declare the action of the respondents in not ﬁxing his pay in the revised pay scales in pursuance of the award passed by the Tribunal as arbitrary and illegal. In the counter ﬁled on behalf of the respondents, it is stated that after reinstatement of the petitioner, his pay was re-ﬁxed by computing the increments even for the period for which he was out of service. In that view of the matter, it cannot be said that the pay of the petitioner was not re-ﬁxed in accordance with the award of the Tribunal. Writ Petition No. 27069 of 1999 is, therefore, dismissed. No order as to costs. R.SUBHASH REDDY, J Dated: 11-09-2008 ks ..... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1 The Chairman and Managing Director, Musherabad , APSRTC, Hyderabad. 2 Regional Manager, APSRTC, Cuddapah Region, Cuddapah. 3 The Depot Manager, APSRTC, Cuddapah Region, Cuddapah. 4 2CD copies [1] 2007 (2) SCC 433