HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT PETITION No. 396 OF 2005 DATED 22ND DECEMBER, 2009. Between The Divisional Manager, APSRTC, Nalgonda Division and anr. ….Petitioners and Sri S. Venkanna and anr. … Respondent. HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT PETITION No. 396 OF 2005 ORDER: The Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation (APSRTC) challenges the Award dated 6.7.2004 passed by the Labour Court-III, Hyderabad, in I.D.No.28 of 2002. By the said Award, the Labour Court directed the APSRTC to reinstate the ﬁrst respondent in service as a Conductor with continuity of service and back wages. The Labour Court, however, directed that the period of his suspension should not be counted for any purpose and that the ﬁrst respondent was not entitled to attendant benefits. The ﬁrst respondent was appointed as a casual Conductor in the APSRTC on 30.4.1998 and his services were regularized on 15.7. 2000. Basing on certain cash and ticket irregularities detected during the check made on 17.4.2001 while the ﬁrst respondent was conducting the bus service from Bhongir to Mahatma Gandhi Bus Station, he was issued a charge Memo. Dissatisﬁed with his explanation, the APSRTC appointed an Enquiry Oﬃcer, who found that the charge levelled against the ﬁrst respondent was duly proved. Thereupon, the order dated 6.9.2001 was passed removing the ﬁrst respondent from service. His appeal was rejected on 30.1.2002. Aggrieved thereby, the ﬁrst respondent approached the Labour Court by raising an Industrial Dispute under Section 2-A(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short ‘the Act of 1947’) which was taken on file as I.D.No.28 of 2002. Upon re-appreciation of the evidence adduced in the domestic enquiry, the Labour Court came to the conclusion that the charge levelled against the ﬁrst respondent was not proved. Accordingly, the Labour Court granted the relief as aforestated denying the ﬁrst respondent attendant beneﬁts and directing the period of his suspension to be not counted for any purpose. Hence, this Writ Petition by the APSRTC. This Court by order dated 20.1.2005, in the ﬁrst instance granted stay of the Award subject to compliance with the provisions of Section 17-B of the Act of 1947. Thereafter, by order dated 11.2.2005, this Court took note of the fact that the ﬁrst respondent had already been reinstated in service and accordingly modiﬁed the earlier order of stay by directing the APSRTC to deposit 50% of the back wages payable as per the Award of the Labour Court and permitted the ﬁrst respondent to withdraw the same without furnishing any security. It is contended by Sri G. Venkateswarlu, learned Counsel, representing Sri C.Sunil Kumar Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for the APSRTC, that the Labour Court ought not to have held that the misconduct levelled against the ﬁrst respondent was not proved. He further contended that the charge levelled against the ﬁrst respondent was serious in nature and therefore, did not warrant any interference by the Labour Court. He placed reliance on the judgment of a learned Single Judge of this Court in E.H.N. REDDY VS. VICE CHAIRMAN AND MANAGING DIRECTOR, APSRTC, HYDERABAD, AND OTHERS[1] in support of his contention. Per contra, Sri V.Narasimha Goud, learned Counsel for the ﬁrst respondent, submitted that his client had been reinstated in service pursuant to the award under challenge and had also withdrawn the amount directed to be deposited by this Court under the interim order. On merits, the learned Counsel submitted that the Award under challenge did not warrant any interference as the Labour Court, upon proper and full appreciation of the evidence, came to the conclusion that the ﬁnding arrived at during the domestic enquiry was unsustainable on facts and was therefore perverse. A reading of the Award under Challenge reﬂects that the Labour Court, having accepted the memo ﬁled by the petitioner with regard to the validity of the domestic enquiry, examined the evidence on record to verify whether the ﬁndings recorded during the domestic enquiry against the ﬁrst respondent on the basis of the said evidence were sustainable. Upon such re-appreciation of the evidence, the Labour Court came to the conclusion that the charge levelled against the ﬁrst respondent was not proved. The Labour Court supported its conclusion in this regard with cogent reasoning. I n E.H.N. Reddy, the misconduct alleged against the Conductor with regard to reissue of tickets was held proved. This Court held that such reissue of tickets constitutes a grave misconduct. In the present case, on the other hand, the Labour Court, after a detailed enquiry, came to the conclusion that the charge of reissue of used tickets levelled against the ﬁrst respondent was not proved. E.H.N. Reddy is therefore of no avail to the APSRTC. In such view of the matter, I see no reason to interfere with the Award under challenge. However, it has to be noticed that the Labour Court did not disclose any reason for grant of full back wages to the first respondent. Trite to state, payment of back wages is no longer an automatic or inevitable consequence upon a direction of reinstatement. The Labour Court has to weigh various factors in the course of this exercise and cannot mechanically grant or deny back wages. In the present case, no such exercise is manifest from the Award under challenge. Considering the fact that the ﬁrst respondent remained out of service of the APSRTC till he was reinstated pursuant to the Award under challenge, I am of the opinion that the ends of the justice would be suﬃciently served by directing payment of 50% of the back wages, being the amount already withdrawn by the ﬁrst respondent, instead of full back wages. The Award shall stand modiﬁed to that extent, but is conﬁrmed in all other respects. The Writ Petition is accordingly allowed in part. There shall be no order as to costs. -------------------------- ----------- JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DATED 22ND DECEMBER, 2009. MSNR. [1] 2006 (6) ALD 682