IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY SEVENTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED AND THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.G.SHANKAR WRIT APPEAL No. 1470 OF 2003 Between: The Depot Manager, APSRTC, Gannavaram, Krishna District and others ..... APPELLANTS AND R.S. Naik and another .....RESPONDENTS The Court made the following : JUDGMENT: (per THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMAD) The reinstatement of the workman into service with 1/4th back wages for the period from the date of his removal to the date of his reinstatement into service, ordered by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No. 26987 of 1997 dated 30.09.2002, is assailed in the present Writ Appeal by the Respondent Corporation. The first respondent herein filed the above writ petition questioning the Award dated 23.11.1995 passed by the Industrial Tribunal reinstating him into service but without granting back wages. The first respondent was employed with the appellant Corporation as Driver. For the unauthorized absence from 13.1.1991 to 19.2.1991, 9.7.1991 to 25.7.1991 and 26.1.1992 to 29.2.2002, he was served with a charge memo and after conducting a regular enquiry, removal order dated 1.4.1992 came to be passed by the second appellant, which was confirmed on appeal filed by the first respondent. Aggrieved thereby, the first respondent raised an industrial dispute under Sec.2-A(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act in I.D. No. 267 of 1993 seeking reinstatement with continuity of service, back wages and other attendant benefits. The Industrial Tribunal by the order impugned in the writ petition, on consideration of the rival contentions, held that the absence of the workman – first respondent herein is not willful but due to sickness which is supported by medical certificate and as such directed the appellant Corporation to reinstate the workman into service without back wages. Aggrieved thereby, the workman filed the above writ petition assailing negation of back wages. The sole contention raised on behalf of the appellant Corporation is that in the absence of any evidence or an issue framed by the Industrial Tribunal to the effect that whether the first respondent was gainfully employed or not, the learned Single Judge ought not to have granted 1/4th back wages. Whereas, the learned counsel appearing on behalf the first respondent – workman has tried to support the judgment of the learned Single Judge inter alia contending that when no material or evidence is placed by the appellants herein either before the Industrial Tribunal or before the learned Single Judge, no interference is called for in the order impugned. The Industrial Tribunal on appreciation of the rival contentions has held that the workman is not guilty of unauthorized absence but it was due to illness. When it is held that the workman was absent due to illness, the question of he being gainfully employed does not arise. Therefore, the learned Single Judge, having adverted to the said issue, has rightly passed discretionary order granting 1/4th of the back wages in the absence of any material or evidence filed by the appellants herein. We do not find any infirmity or illegality in the order impugned. Consequently, the Writ Appeal fails and is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. ______________________ Justice Ghulam Mohammed ________________ Justice K.G.Shankar April 27, 2011 MAS