HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED AND HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT APPEAL NO. 1335 OF 2005 Between: Ch Narasimulu, S/o Balaiah ………….Appellant AND The Depot Manager, APSRTC, and two others ………….Respondent JUDGMENT: (Per Hon'ble Sri Justice Ghulam Mohammed) Challenging the order-dated 19.11.2004 passed in Writ Petition No. 709 of 1998 by a learned Single Judge of this Court, the present Writ Appeal is filed. Appellant herein was appointed as a temporary Driver in the year 1977. On the allegation of misconduct after conducting a detailed enquiry the services of the appellant were terminated on 17.1.1986. Hence, the appellant raised an industrial dispute under Section 10(1)(C) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and the Labour Court held that the punishment of removal from service was found to be disproportionate to the gravity of the misconduct and directed reinstatement of the workman into service with continuity of service and 10% of backwages. Aggrieved by the same, first respondent herein filed the Writ Petition and a learned Single Judge of this Court allowed the Writ Petition and modified the order of the Labour Court to the extent that the workman is entitled for reinstatement with continuity of service but without any backwages and other attendant benefits and liberty is given to the Management to recover 10% of the backwages and other attendant benefits, if any, paid. Aggrieved by the same, the present Writ Appeal is filed by the workman. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant submits that the appellant was removed from service vide order dated 28.12.1985 after enquiry, and the said enquiry conducted by the first respondent was vitiated by the Labour Court vide order dated 17.11.1988 and therefore, the Tribunal- second respondent herein granted reinstatement into service with 10% backwages along with continuity of service. Hence, the learned Single Judge ought to have appreciated that there were no grounds to hold the appellant guilty of charges. On the other hand, the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the Corporation submits that the order passed by the learned Single is quite reasonable and there are no grounds to interfere with the same. Heard the learned counsel appearing for both sides and also perused the material made available on record. As seen from the record, Exs M1 to M-14 were marked with consent on behalf of the management. Ex. M-14 is the enquiry finding report dated 20.11.1985 of the Conductor and the Enquiry Officer held that the first charge viz., “for having intentionally failed bus No. APZ 9346 at kjaligate on 9.8.1985 while you were operating the last down trip of 12.30 hours Kaligate service” is not proved. Hence, the Tribunal directed the Management to reinstate the appellant into service with continuity of service within 30 days from the date of publication of the award and directed to pay 10% of backwages. But the learned Single Judge modified the award of the Labour Court to the extent that the workman is entitled for reinstatement with continuity of service but without any backwages and other attendant benefits. Hence, we do not find any illegality in the order passed by the learned Single Judge on all other aspects except denying 10% of backwages. Accordingly the Writ Appeal is allowed in part by setting aside the order passed by the learned Single Judge denying 10% backwages and restoring the order of the labour Court, in so far as it granting 10% of backwages. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant submits that the Corporation has issued proceedings dated 15.4.2005 for recovery of 10% of the backwages. In view of the above, the Corporation is directed to take action in accordance with the finding given by this Court. There shall be no order as to costs. ________________________ GHULAM MOHAMMED, J _____________________ SANJAY KUMAR, J DATE: 13.10.2011 KA ... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1. 2 CD copies.