THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO.1584 OF 2004 DATED 1st FEBRUARY, 2010 BETWEEN: The Depot Manager, APSRTC., Tandur Depot, R.R. District. … Petitioner A n d Sri Namdev, and another. … Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO.1584 OF 2004 O R D E R The Depot Manager of the Tandur Depot of the Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation (for brevity, ‘the APSRTC’), challenges the Award dated 18.06.2003 passed by the Industrial Tribunal-II, Hyderabad, in I.D.No.125 of 2002. By the said Award, the Industrial Tribunal set aside the order dated 15.10.1996 passed by the APSRTC terminating the services of the petitioner therein/the first respondent herein. The Industrial Tribunal also directed his reinstatement in service as a Conductor along with part payment of the back wages as detailed in the Award. The first respondent-Conductor entered into the service of the APSRTC in the year 1996. He was subjected to disciplinary proceedings in respect of certain cash and ticket irregularities said to have been detected while he was conducting the bus service on the route, Rudraram to Kodangal. Thereupon, he was removed from service by order dated 15.10.1996. The same was confirmed in appeal and thereafter, in review. The first respondent therefore invoked the provisions of Section 2-A(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short, ‘the Act of 1947’), in I.D.No.620 of 2000, which was thereafter renumbered as I.D.No.125 of 2002 on the file of the Industrial Tribunal- II, Hyderabad. The APSRTC contested the claim of the first respondent- Conductor stating that he was a daily wage employee and not a workman. According to the APSRTC, he was appointed as a casual Conductor in 1996 and thereafter absorbed as such. The APSRTC supported its action in terminating the services of the petitioner under its order dated 15.10.1996. The Award under challenge reflects that the APSRTC admitted that no enquiry had been held prior to the passing of the termination orders against the first respondent-Conductor. It is also to be noticed that having failed to conduct an enquiry in the matter, the APSRTC precipitated the same by not adducing any evidence even before the Industrial Tribunal. Thus, in effect, no proceedings worth the name were held to establish any misconduct on the part of the first respondent-Conductor. In such view of the matter, the finding of the Industrial Tribunal that the removal of the petitioner from service was in clear violation of the principles of natural justice is unassailable. No ground is therefore made out to interfere with the direction of the Industrial Tribunal to reinstate the first respondent-Conductor in service. As regards the issue of back wages, the Industrial Tribunal exercised its discretion judiciously and directed the APSRTC to pay full back wages to the first respondent-Conductor from the date of his termination from service, i.e., 15.10.1996 upto 16.07.1997, being the date of dismissal of his review petition. However, as there was a delay on the part of the first respondent-Conductor in approaching the Court thereafter, the Industrial Tribunal directed that no back wages would be payable from 16.07.1997 till the date of filing of the petition under Section 2-A(2) of the Act of 1947 i.e. 27.07.2000. The Industrial Tribunal further directed payment of 50% of the back wages from the date of filing of the petition till the date of publication of the Award and payment of full wages from the date of publication of the Award till the date of actual reinstatement in service. It appears that the first respondent-Conductor was reinstated in service pursuant to the subject Award in as much as this Court by its order dated 29.01.2004 granted interim stay of the Award except to the extent of reinstatement of the first respondent-Conductor in service. The aforesaid exercise by the Industrial Tribunal while granting back wages clearly manifests proper application of mind in accordance with law and a judicious exercise of discretion. Thus, no grounds are made out to interfere with the Award under challenge on any count. The writ petition is devoid of merit and is accordingly dismissed. In the circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs. -------------------------- SANJAY KUMAR,J 1st FEBRUARY, 2010 PGS