IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD TUESDAY, THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE AND THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY Writ Appeal No. 756 of 2001 (Writ Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the Order dated 01/03/2001 in Writ Petition No.14861 of 1990 on the file of the High Court.) Between: The Depot Manager, APSRTC, Srikalahasti, Chittoor District. ... APPELLANT AND 1) D. Bhushaiah, Ex-Conductor, D.No.5/88-B, Bhavaninagar, Tirupathi,Chittoor District. 2) The Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Anantapur. ...RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Appellant: MR. SMT. W.V.S. RAJESWARI, SC FOR APSTRC Counsel for Respondent No.1: NONE APPEARED The Court made the following: ORAL JUDGMENT: (per Shri Anil R. Dave, Hon’ble the Chief Justice) 1. The appellant is an employer, who has been aggrieved by the order dated 1.3.2001 passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No.14861 of 1990. 2. Respondent No.1 was working as a Conductor, who had diverted the bus to a police station, as there was some quarrel among the passengers, which was of serious nature. At the police station, the bus had been detained for about 3½ hours, which resulted into inconvenience to the passengers. 3. In the afore-stated circumstances, departmental proceedings had been initiated and in the said proceedings, respondent No.1 was held to be guilty of the charges levelled against him. In view of the fact that the charges levelled respondent No.1 had been proved, he was removed from service in May, 1987. 4. Being aggrieved by the order of removal from service, respondent No.1 had approached the Labour Court, Anantapur. After hearing the concerned parties and considering the evidence adduced before it, the Labour Court had directed the appellant for reinstatement of respondent No.1 without backwages. The Labour Court did not award backwages for the reason that the respondent Conductor could not establish that he was not gainfully employed elsewhere. 5. Being aggrieved by the award dated 10.5.1988 of the Labour Court, the respondent Conductor had filed Writ Petition No.14861 of 1990, which has been allowed by the learned Single Judge. By virtue of the order passed in the writ petition, the appellant employer has been directed to pay 50% of the backwages. 6. The learned Single Judge, after hearing the concerned advocates and upon perusal of the record and the award passed by the Labour Court, came to the conclusion that the respondent Conductor could not have led any evidence with regard to his not being gainfully employed and the burden was on the employer to prove that the respondent Conductor was gainfully employed. As substantial time had elapsed, the learned Single Judge had directed that 50% of the backwages should be awarded to the respondent Conductor. 7. The learned standing counsel appearing for the appellant employer has submitted that the learned Single Judge ought not to have awarded any amount by way of backwages especially when the respondent Conductor could not establish that he had remained unemployed. It has been, therefore, submitted that the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge be quashed and set aside. 8. Upon hearing the learned standing counsel appearing for the appellant and upon perusal of the award and the impugned order of the learned Single Judge, we are of the view that the learned Single Judge did not commit any mistake while awarding 50% backwages to the respondent Conductor. If the respondent Conductor was not employed anywhere, he could not have adduced any evidence with regard to his not being gainfully employed. In the circumstances of the case, the burden was on the appellant employer to establish that the respondent Conductor had been employed elsewhere, but the said fact could not be established by the appellant employer. 9. In the aforestated circumstances, the learned Single Judge has directed payment of 50% backwages to the respondent Conductor. 10. In view of the above facts, we do not find any substance in the appeal and the same is dismissed with no order as to costs. ANIL R. DAVE, CJ August 18, 2009 C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY, J svs ........REGISTRAR To 1. 2.2 CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WA {VSMI}