THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.26101 of 2007 ORDER: The first respondent was employed as a driver in A.P.S.R.T.C. on casual basis on 28.04.1998. He was issued a show-cause notice- cum-suspension order dated 14.06.1999. It was pointed out that though his date of birth according to the school records was 05.01.1954, he had produced a certificate depicting his date of birth as 19.03.1954 and that the same constitutes misconduct. He submitted explanation. No enquiry was conducted and his services were terminated after issuing show-cause notice. The departmental appeal preferred by the first respondent did not yield any result. He raised an industrial dispute before the Labour Court, Guntur, and the same was taken up as I.D.No.88 of 2000. Through its order dated 29.07.2005, the Labour Court has set aside the order of termination and directed reinstatement of the first respondent into service with continuity of service and backwages. The same is challenged in this writ petition by A.P.S.R.T.C., petitioner herein. Heard the learned standing counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for first respondent. The only allegation against the first respondent was that there existed a discrepancy as to his date of birth. While in the school records, it was shown as 05.01.1954, the certificate produced by him at the time of his appointment has shown it as 19.03.1954. The show- cause notice was accordingly issued one year after the first respondent came to be employed and he was also suspended. The explanation offered by him that he was not responsible for the discrepancy of date of birth as shown in the certificate issued by the authorities of the school, and that in the school record, was not accepted. On the ground that he is not a regular employee, the petitioner did not conduct any departmental enquiry. The Labour Court dealt with the matter in detail and observed that it was not even alleged that the first respondent has resorted to any manipulation of records. Another aspect, which was taken into account, was that the so-called discrepancy in the date of birth did not confer any benefit on the first respondent nor did it take away any disqualification. Under these circumstances, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the award passed by the Labour Court. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned award as regards payment of total backwages is cumbersome to the Corporation and it cannot be burdened with that. It is no doubt true that the first respondent was out of service for about seven years for one reason or the other. No effort was made by the Labour Court or the parties herein to know whether he was otherwise gainfully employed. Taking into account the totality of the case, this Court is of the view that the backwages deserve to be reduced to the extent of 1/4th. Hence, the Writ Petition is allowed in part, only to the extent of reducing the backwages to 1/4th and sustaining the award dated 29.07.2005 passed in I.D.No.88 of 2000 on the file of the Labour Court, Guntur, as regards reinstatement of the first respondent into service and conferring the benefit of continuity of service and attendant benefits available to him under the relevant provisions of law. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________________ L.NARASIMHA REDDY, J 24th June, 2010 GHN