IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE THIRTEENTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU WRIT PETITION No. 8514 of 1999 Between: Ramineni Hanumantha Rao S/o Sitaramaiah R/o Tenali , Guntur District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Labour Court, Guntur. 2 The APSRTC Bus Depot, rep. by the Depot Manager, Tenali , Guntur District. 3 The APSRTC, rep. by the Regional Manager, Guntur Division , Guntur . .....RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court may be pleased to issue a Writ a Writ of Certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order, or direction, calling the records relating to I.D. No.140/95, on the file of the Labour Court ,Guntur issued in G.O Rc No.1696, Labour , Employment, Training and factories (LAB.I)Dept. dt 23-9-98 and to quash the award dt 20-8-98 of the Labour Court , Guntur to the extent of refusal of grant of back wages and directing the respondents 2 & 3 to pay full back wages , with all attendant benefits and ex-gratia payments and all consequential benefits to the petitioner. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.T.SESHAGIRI RAO Counsel for the Respondent No.1: GP FOR LABOUR Counsel for the Respondent No.2 & 3: MR. C. PRAKASH REDDY The Court made the following : THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. RAMULU WRIT PETITION No.8514 OF 1999 ORDER: This writ petition is filed challenging the award, dated 20.08.1998, made in I.D.No.140 of 1995 on the file of the Labour Court, Guntur, insofar as denying backwages to the petitioner while ordering his reinstatement into service with continuity of service. It appears, the petitioner, while working as Conductor with A.P. State Road Transport Corporation at Tenali Bus Depot, was proceeded with departmentally in the year 1986 for certain cash and ticket irregularities alleged to have been committed by him on the day when the bus being conducted by him met with an accident and fell into a canal. It was alleged that the petitioner misappropriated the cash collected towards fare and thrown the statistical return into canal taking advantage of the accident. After conducting a detailed enquiry into those irregularities, he was removed from service, vide proceedings dated 10.04.1987 of the disciplinary authority. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner raised an industrial dispute, being I.D.No.140 of 1995, under Section 2-A (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short ‘the I.D. Act’), before the Labour Court, Guntur. The Labour Court, after detailed consideration of the matter, held that the enquiry report submitted by the enquiry officer has no bona fides because it is an admitted fact that the bus fell into the canal and everybody struggled for their lives and, in those circumstances, it is most uncharitable on the part of the management to say that the workman misappropriated the amounts, while he was saying that the said amount was lost in the accident. The Labour Court ultimately opined that imposition of punishment of removal from service on the petitioner is not justifiable for the misconduct alleged and, accordingly, passed an award directing the management to reinstate the petitioner into service with continuity of service, but without any backwages. Aggrieved by such denial of backwages, the petitioner filed the present writ petition. Learned counsel for the petitioner strenuously contended that the Labour Court, while holding that the punishment of removal from service is disproportionate to that of the misconduct alleged, ought not to have denied backwages to the petitioner while ordering reinstatement with continuity of service and the petitioner is entitled for backwages for the period he was out of employment. The fact that the bus, which was being conducted by the petitioner, met with an accident is not denied. It was the case of the petitioner that in that accident, he lost the cash, tickets tray, statistical return etc. and there was no misconduct at all on his part. The Labour Court observed that as seen from the domestic enquiry report, the villagers of Morampudi village rescued the petitioner and others, and as seen from the record in C.C.No.81 of 1987 filed against the petitioner, nobody stated that they handed over cash to the petitioner. Thus, the Labour Court found that the punishment of removal from service is not justifiable and, accordingly, exercising its powers under Section 11-A of the I.D. Act, the Labour Court passed an award directing the management to reinstate the petitioner into service with continuity of service, but without any backwages. With regard to backwages, the Labour Court held that though the petitioner was acquitted in the criminal case filed against him, consequential benefits such as backwages cannot be granted as a matter of course while ordering reinstatement. It was further held that the findings of the criminal court and domestic enquiry report are diagonally opposed and, therefore, the petitioner is not entitled to backwages. I do not see any illegality in the award passed by the Labour Court. I am of the opinion that such an award passed by the Labour Court does not call for any interference of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The writ petition is devoid of merits and is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. No costs. _________________ JUSTICE C.V. RAMULU 13th March, 2008. IBL To 1 The Depot Manager, APSRTC Bus Depot, Tenali , Guntur District. 2 The Regional Manager, APSRTC, Guntur Division , Guntur. 3 Two CCs to G.P. for Labour, High Court of A.P., High Court Buildings, Hyderabad. (OUT).