IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD SATURDAY, THE FIFTEENTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI ANIL R. DAVE, THE CHIEF JUSTICE and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY WRIT APPEAL NO : 1328 of 2008 (Writ Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the Order dated 12/03/2008 in WP NO : 3160 OF 2006 on the file of the High Court.) Between: The Depot Manager, APSRTC, Bhadrachalam Depot, Khammam District. ..... APPELLANT AND 1 S.Babu Rao, S/o.Pullaiah, R/o.Deshinenipalem (V) & Post, Mandal: Madhira, Dist.Khammam. 2 The Industrial Tribunal-Cum-Labour Court, Warangal. .....RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Appellant:SMT.P.RAJANI REDDY Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR LABOUR WRIT APPEAL NO : 1349 of 2008 (Writ Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the Order dated 12/03/2008 in WP NO : 3160 OF 2006 on the file of the High Court.) Between: S.Babu Rao, S/o. Pullaiah, R/o. Deshinenipalem(V) & Post, Mandal, Madhira, District Khammam. ..... APPELLANT AND 1 The Depot Manager, APSRTC, Bhadrachalam Depot, Khammam District. 2 The Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Warangal. .....RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Appellant:MR.P.SRIDHAR RAO Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR LABOUR The Court made the following : COMMON JUDGMENT: (Per Sri Anil R. Dave, CJ) Being aggrieved by the order passed by the learned single Judge in W.P.No. 3160 of 2006 dated 12-3-2008, both the parties, namely the Workman and the Employer-APSRTC have ﬁled these two appeals. As both the appeals arise from the same order, both the appeals have been heard together. The workman-driver remained absent for 7 days and as the leave was unauthorized, he was removed from service after holding departmental inquiry. Being aggrieved by the order of removal, he had approached the Industrial Tribunal-cum- Labour Court, Warangal and the impugned order of removal was quashed and set aside by the Industrial Tribunal-cum- Labour Court by an order dated 21-6-2005 and the workman was ordered to be reinstated into service with full back wages. The aforestated award was challenged by the employer by filing the aforestated writ petition. After hearing the learned concerned Advocates, the learned single Judge allowed the petition by modifying the award to the extent that instead of 100 per cent back wages, the employer was directed to pay 50 per cent back wages. The employer has been aggrieved by the said order for the reason that 50 per cent back wages have been award whereas the workman has been aggrieved because 100 per cent back wages have been reduced to 50 per cent. We have heard the learned Advocates appearing for the workman as well as the employer-APSRTC. Upon perusal of the award as well as the impugned order passed by the learned single Judge, it is clear that the workman who had gone to a diﬀerent place to see his mother, suﬀered from typhoid and, therefore, he could not resume his duties upon completion of the sanctioned leave. In the aforestated circumstances, the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court had taken a lenient view by considering the order of removal to be very harsh and, therefore, he was directed to be reinstated with full back wages. The learned single Judge has come to the conclusion that grant of 100 per cent back wages was quite lenient and, therefore, the back wages have been reduced to 50 per cent. Upon perusal of the impugned order and upon hearing the learned Advocates, in our opinion, the order passed by the learned single Judge is quite reasonable and we do not ﬁnd any irregularity in the said order. Looking to the facts of the case, both the appeals are dismissed with no order as to costs. _____________________ ANIL R. DAVE, CJ _________________________ R. SUBHASH REDDY, J 15th November, 2008. GRR