IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE TWENTY FIFTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 31302 of 1998 Between: The Divisional Secretary Employees Union, A.P.S.R.T.C., Anantapur. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Divisional Manager, A.P.S.R.T.C., Anantapur. 2 The Chairman-cum-Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal-cum- Labour Court, Anantapur. ...RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioner: NONE APPEARED Counsel for respondent No.1: SMT.W.V.S.RAJESWARI Counsel for respondent No.2: None appeared The Court made the following : O R D E R: This writ petition is filed for a writ of Certiorari to quash award dated 22-08-1996 passed in I.D.No.184 of 1993, on the file of the Chairman-cum-Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court (for short “the Labour Court”), Ananthapur to the extent of denying the arrears of difference of wages, as illegal. When this writ petition was taken up for hearing on 18-11-2008, it was adjourned to 24-11-2008 at the request made on behalf of the learned counsel for the petitioner. On 24-11-2008, a further request was made for adjournment and accordingly, the case has been adjourned for today. Today, at the hearing, there is no representation for the petitioner. I have heard Smt W.V.S.Rajeswari, learned counsel for the respondents, and perused the record. The petitioner is espousing the cause of Sri R.Narayana Swamy, Conductor of the Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation (for short “the Corporation”), who was removed from service as a measure of punishment by the disciplinary authority by order dated 01-06-1989. The said punishment was confirmed by the Divisional Manager on 14-09-1989. In a review filed on 10-11-1989, the order of removal was modified to the one of reduction of pay to the minimum time scale of Conductor. The Labour Court, in its award, found that though the passengers, whose statements were recorded supported the stand of the Conductor that he intended to return the amount of Rs.45/-, which was collected in excess of the luggage tickets, and that by the time, the bus reached the next stage, the checking officials checked the vehicle, the punishment imposed on the workman had no justification. Accordingly, the Labour Court held that the charge was held not proved and that the punishment is liable to be set aside. However, while granting the relief, the Labour Court relied on a memo filed on behalf of the workman that he is not claiming arrears of wages and it accordingly held that the workman waived his right to claim arrears. In the affidavit filed by the Divisional Secretary of Employees’ Union, Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation, Ananthapur, in support of the writ petition, it is stated in para 5 as under- “It is submitted that the alleged memo was filed without any instructions from the workman concerned or the Union which has espoused the cause of the workman.” In my considered view, this plea is absolutely vague and the same lacks in material particulars. The deponent of the affidavit did not explain as to who filed the memo and at whose instance the said memo was filed. The affidavit of the workman is not filed in support of this plea. The petitioner failed to either plead or produce any material to the effect that the person, who filed the memo was given any notice pointing out that such a memo was filed unauthorisedly. Having carefully considered the facts, I feel that this plea of the petitioner is a pure afterthought. Admittedly a memo having already been filed waiving the right of the workman to claim difference of pay, I do not find any illegality in the Labour Court denying the said relief by holding that the workman waived his right to receive the arrears. For the above mentioned reasons, the writ petition is dismissed. C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Dated 25th November, 2008 vrn