THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. RAMULU W.P. No.1606 of 2005 O R D E R: This writ petition is directed against an Award made in I.D. No. 131 of 2000 dated 27.2.2003 by the Labour Court, Visakhapatnam insofar as denying backwages while granting relief of reinstatement with continuity of service etc. Petitioner is the workman. Respondent No.1 is the management. It appears, petitioner was appointed as driver in the APSRTC with effect from 9.5.1996. While that being so, alleging that on 26/27.2.1996 he was involved in some misconduct, a charge-sheet was issued by the management on 21.6.1996 and, on the basis of preliminary enquiry report, he was placed under suspension w.e.f. 23.6.1996. After conducting detailed enquiry into the same, he was terminated from service vide order dated 16.12.1996. The petitioner preferred appeal and revision against the said order, but the same were dismissed on 9.5.1997. For more than three years, petitioner did not raise any dispute. However, he raised the I.D. under Section 2-A(ii) of the I.D. Act, in the year 2000, before the Industrial Tribunal-cum- Labour Court, Visakhapatnam. The Labour Court, having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, set aside the order of removal, instead, imposed punishment of deferring one annual increment without cumulative effect and ordered for reinstatement of the petitioner with continuity of service but without backwages. Against the said Award passed by the Labour Court insofar as not awarding backwages, petitioner filed the present appeal. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the never involved in any misconduct as alleged by the management. Even assuming that there was any misconduct on his part, it does not warrant punishment of removal from service. Though there is no positive evidence in support of the charges leveled against the petitioner, the Labour Court has not awarded backwages while directing reinstatement with continuity of service. Therefore, the Labour Court ought to have awarded backwages also along with reinstatement with continuity of service. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent No.1 Sri K. Satyanarayana Murthy supported the Award passed by the Labour Court and submitted that, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Labour Court, in its wisdom, passed the order of reinstatement with continuity of service without backwages and the petitioner does not deserve any leniency to be shown and the writ petition is liable to be dismissed. Heard both sides and perused the impugned order and other material made available on record. Petitioner was appointed as driver in APSRTC on 9.5.1986. The incident which resulted in issuance of charge-sheet dated 21.6.1996 occurred on 26.2.1996. Charges framed were, serious misconduct of impropriety and misbehaviour. It was alleged that the petitioner tried to push the Conductor from out of the bus and he was driving the vehicle rashly and negligently and some liquor boxes were also found in his possession. However, though the Labour Court came to the conclusion that there is no positive evidence to prove all the charges, taking into consideration the illegal diversion of the bus and unauthorized transport of tamarind, took a lenient view and set aside the order of removal dated 16.12.1996 passed by the management and directed the management to reinstate the petitioner into service with continuity of service but without backwages etc. This order passed by the Labour Court is in exercise of its powers under Section 11-A of the I.D. Act. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the opinion that the Labour Court has taken very lenient view of the matter and ordered reinstatement of the petitioner into service with continuity of service but without backwages. The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner that in view of the finding that the charges are not proved and there is no positive evidence, denial of backwages is arbitrary, cannot be countenanced. The termination order was passed on 16.12.1996 and the appeal was dismissed on 9.5.1993. The petitioner has not filed any petition till 2000 i.e. for more than three years. Under those circumstances, looking from any angle, petitioner is not entitled for any further relief, particularly, for backwages from the date of termination till the date of reinstatement. It is also brought to the notice of the Court that the petitioner, after attaining the age of superannuation, already retired from service. Under those circumstances, the writ petition is devoid of merit and liable to be dismissed. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. However, it is made clear that the petitioner is entitled for all the terminal benefits on attaining the age of superannuation. JUSTICE C.V. RAMULU. Date: 16-4-2010. MVB.