THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU WRIT PETITION No.4066 of 2005 Dated: 11.06.2010 Between: The Depot Manager, APSRTC, Shadnagar Depot, Mahaboobnagar District. .. Petitioner and The Labour Court-III, Hyderabad, Rep. by its Presiding Officer, and others. .. Respondents ORDER: This writ petition is directed against the award dated 26.07.2004 passed by the Labour Court-III, A.P., Hyderabad, in I.D.No.129 of 2000. Petitioner is the management and respondents 2 to 4 are the legal heirs of the deceased workman namely E.Tippanna, who was appointed as a Conductor in the A.P. State Road Transport Corporation (for short ‘the Corporation’) in the year 1978. While the said E.Tippanna was in service, he was charge sheeted on the allegations of unauthorised absenteeism for a period of 170 days and causing inconvenience due to his unauthorized absence, and an ex parte enquiry was conducted and ultimately, by order dated 29.06.1988, the said E.Tippanna was removed from service. Thereafter, since the said Tippanna died on 09.09.1998, his legal heirs, respondents 2 to 4 herein, approached the Labour Court-III, Hyderabad, after 12 long years and filed an application being I.D.No.129 of 2000, under Section 2-A (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, (for short ‘the I.D. Act’), seeking to set aside the removal order dated 29.06.1988 and to direct the management to treat that the said Tippanna was in service till his death i.e., 09.09.1998 and to extend all the death benefits etc. Before the Labour Court, the counsel appearing for the claim petitioners filed a memo under Section 11-A of the I.D. Act stating that the petitioners are not disputing the procedural aspects of the domestic enquiry conducted by the management. No oral evidence was adduced on either side, but however on behalf of the deceased workman, Exs.W1 to W10 were marked and on behalf of the management, documents Exs.M1 to M10 were marked. After detailed consideration of the entire material placed before it, the Labour Court came to the conclusion that the charges leveled against the workman are not proved according to law and that the deceased workman was removed for unauthorized absence, without following the principles of natural justice and without giving an opportunity to explain his absence, and accordingly, by the impugned award dated 26.07.2004, the removal order dated 29.0.1988 was set aside and the management was directed to treat the death of the workman as if he died in harness on 09.09.1998 and the period from 29.06.1988 to 09.09.1998 as in continuous service. However, the legal heirs were granted 50% backwages for the period from 29.06.1988 to 09.09.1998 only and denied the attendant benefits. Aggrieved thereby, the present writ petition is filed by the management. Heard the learned counsel on either side and perused the impugned award and other material placed on record. At the outset, I am of the considered opinion that the very I.D. filed before the Labour Court was stale, since it was filed after 12 years from the date of removal of the deceased workman from service, and therefore, the Labour Court ought not to have entertained the I.D. This approach made by the Labour Court cannot be appreciated. However, in its wisdom, the Labour Court entertained the I.D. and passed the impugned award as stated supra, considering the fact that the charges are not proved and the principles of natural justice were violated, but, for the reason that the legal heirs approached after 12 years from the date of removal, it ought not to have awarded 50% of backwages, since it is nothing but rewarding for the delay caused in filing the I.D. Thus, I am of the considered opinion that the Labour Court grossly erred in awarding 50% of backwages in a case of this nature. For the aforesaid reasons, the impugned award is modified as under: “The order of removal dated 29.06.1988 is set aside and the management is directed to treat that the workman died in harness and the period from 29.06.1988 to 09.09.1998 as in continuous service, and extend all other benefits, except attendant benefits and backwages. The management is further directed to pay all the retirement benefits accrued to the account of late E.Tippanna to his legal heirs, within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.” With the above modification, the writ petition is disposed of. No order as to costs. _____________ C.V.RAMULU,J 11.06.2010 v v