IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE THIRTEENTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No: 20916 of 1999 Between: A.P.S.R.T.C., Rep. by its Depot Manager, Midhani Depot, Kanchanbagh, Hyderabad. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Presiding Officer, Labour Court-I, Hyderabad, A.P., 2 Sri P.Kistaiah, S/o Balaiah, C/o Sri G.Ravi Mohan,Advocate, H.No.16-9-749/41, Race Course Road,Malakpet, Hyderabad. .....RESPONDENT(S) Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Aﬃdavit ﬁled herein the High Court will be pleased to to issue a Writ, Order or direction more particularly in the nautre of Writ of Certiorari by calling for the records in I.D.No.25 of 1996 dt:1- 8-98 published in G.O.R.T.No.1657 dt:17-9-1998 on the ﬁle of the Hon'ble Labour Court-I, Hyderabad and quash the order and pass Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.K.MADHAVA REDDY Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR LABOUR The Court made the following : ORDER: The Depot Manager of Midhani Depot of the Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation (for short – ‘the Corporation’) ﬁled this writ petition questioning the validity of the Award of the Labour Court-I, Hyderabad, in I.D.No.25 of 1996 dated 01-08-1998. 2. The second respondent/workman herein was the Conductor in the Corporation and while he was conducting the bus on 09-12-1988 on route No.203 Adibatla to Women’s College a check was exercised during transit and on the ground of cash and ticket irregularities, disciplinary proceedings were initiated against him. In the disciplinary proceedings a charge memo was issued to him on 12-12-1988 by framing the following charges. “1. The petitioner-Conductor violated the instructions to complete the ticket issue within one fare stage. 2. He failed to collect fare and issue tickets to a batch of 20 passengers consisting of 17 adults and three chargeable children who boarded the bus at Adibatla and bound for Women’s College Ex.stages 3 to 14 constituting misconduct. 3. He failed to close the S.R. up to stage No.4 to 6 constituting misconduct.” Though the workman submitted his explanation on 16-12-1988 in respect of the charge memo issued to him, dissatisﬁed with the same, a regular enquiry was conducted by appointing an enquiry oﬃcer and based on the ﬁndings recorded by the enquiry oﬃcer, the disciplinary authority issued a show cause notice dated 28-01-1989 to the workman with regard to the punishment proposed to be imposed on him and as the workman could not put forth any fresh points for consideration, he was removed from service on 15-02-1989. The appellate and revisional authorities also conﬁrmed the said order of his removal from service. Though the revisional authority passed orders as early as on 19-09-1989, the workman raised the industrial dispute only in the year 1996 by way of an application under Section 2-A(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act in I.D.No.25 of 1996 before the Labour Court-I, Hyderabad. Though, no oral evidence was let in by either side before the Labour Court, the Corporation has produced Exs.M.1 to M.18. The Labour Court has re-appreciated the oral and documentary evidence on record and by the Award dated 01-08-1998, holding that the charges framed against the workman are not proved, set aside the order of removal from service and ordered reinstatement of the workman into service with continuity of service, attendant benefits and full back wages. 3. In this writ petition, the main contention of the learned standing counsel appearing for the Corporation is that though the revisional authority has passed orders as early as on 19-09-1989, there was abnormal delay and laches on the part of the workman in approaching the Labour Court, and so the Labour Court has erred in allowing the industrial dispute raised by the workman and in grating the relief of reinstatement and further contends that in any event the workman is not entitled to the relief of back wages. 4. Though, notice is served on the workman, there is no representation on his behalf. Heard the learned standing counsel appearing for the Corporation and perused the material on record. 5. Mainly it is a case where there was no motive of misappropriation of money on the part of the workman. Even the charges framed against the workman would indicate that he only failed to issue tickets to a batch of 20 passengers constituting a marriage party. The case of the workman in the disciplinary proceedings as well as before the Labour Court is that the entire batch to which he could not issue tickets constitutes a marriage party and he was demanding tickets from the backside of the bus and he was told by them that the person in front side of the bus will take the tickets. In that view of the matter, the Labour Court, by mainly considering on the Ex.M.10 statement given by a passenger, the statements given by two pass holders who were also travelling in the bus, and the explanation ﬁled by the workman, held that that the charges framed against the workman are not proved and that it is not a ﬁt case for ordering removal of the workman from service and ordered reinstatement. Inasmuch as it is open for the Labour Court to re-appreciate the evidence on record, the ﬁndings recorded by it cannot be said to be either perverse or illegal. 6. The further question is whether, in view of the delay on his part, the workman is entitled to the back wages in full. It is to be noted here that the order of removal from service was passed on 15-02-1989 and the appeal was rejected on 07-03-1989 and the review petition was rejected on 19-09-1989 and the application under Section 2-A(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act was ﬁled in April, 1996. While awarding the full back wages, the Labour Court has stated that each and every employee is not expected to know his rights in moving the courts and as such there was some delay occurred. I am unable to accept the said ﬁnding recorded by the Labour Court, because it cannot be said that the workman, who could pursue an appeal and a review petition, does not know about raising of an industrial dispute immediately after the rejection of his review petition. The entire delay is attributable to the workman only and he cannot be allowed to encash the back wages for the unexplained and inordinate delay of nearly six years in approaching the Labour Court. In that view of the mater, the workman cannot be given the full back wages and the attendant beneﬁts also for the period for which he could not pursue his legal remedies. At the same time, there is no suﬃcient reason for denying him the back wages from the date of his ﬁling the application before the Labour Court and till the date of his reinstatement into service and so the Award passed by the Labour Court requires modification. 7. In that view of the matter, the relief of reinstatement with continuity of service as ordered by the Labour Court is conﬁrmed, with back wages only from the date of ﬁling of the application before the Labour Court under Section 2-A(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act till the date of his reinstatement. It is also made clear that the workman is not entitled to the attendant beneﬁts for the period from 19-09-1989 till the date of his ﬁling the application before the Labour Court under Section 2-A(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act. 8. Therefore, the writ petition is partly allowed to the extent indicated above. No order as to costs. ________________________ R.SUBHASH REDDY, J. 13th November 2008 CVRK