IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE THIRD DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 19593 of 1999 Between: The Depot Manager, A.P.S.R.TC., Paderu Depot, Visakhapatnam District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Rep. by it's Presiding Officer, Visakhapatnam. 2 Ch. Appa Rao, Rama Talkies, Visakhapatnam. .....RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to issue a Writ of Certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction calling for the records relating to the award passed in I.D.No.133/97 dt.12-3-1999 by the 1st Respondent and the notification published in G.O.Rt.No.728, dt.17-5-1999 and set aside the same as illegal and arbitrary and pass such other order or orders as the Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. Counsel for the Petitioner : MR.K.MADHAVA REDDY Counsel for the Respondent No.1 : GP FOR LABOUR Counsel for the Respondent No.2 : MR.K.K.CHAKRAVARTHI The Court made the following : ORDER : This writ petition is filed by the Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation, through its Depot Manager of Paderu Depot, Visakhapatnam District, challenging the award, dated 12.03.1999, passed by the Industrial Tribunal- cum-Labour Court, Visakhapatnam, in I.D.No.133 of 1997. 2. The 2nd respondent was working as a Conductor in the petitioner-Corporation. On the ground that he has reported to duty on 05.11.1993 in an intoxicated condition, disciplinary proceedings were initiated against him. After conducting regular inquiry, based on the findings recorded by the inquiry officer, an order of removal was passed by the disciplinary authority. The said order of removal is questioned by way of industrial dispute before the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Visakhapatnam, in I.D.No.133 of 1997, by filing an application under Section 2-A(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The Tribunal has approved the findings of the inquiry officer on the charges levelled against the 2nd respondent, but however, it has modified the punishment by directing reinstatement of 2nd respondent-workman into service without awarding any backwages. 3. It is submitted that pursuant to the award of the Tribunal, the 2nd respondent was reinstated into service and he has also completed more than nine years of service after reinstatement. In this writ petition, it is submitted by the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the petitioner- Corporation that having approved the findings of the inquiry officer, the Tribunal ought not to have directed for reinstatement of respondent No.2. 4. In terms of the discretionary powers conferred under Section 11-A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, the Tribunal has considered the gravity of the charges levelled against the 2nd respondent and used its discretion by directing reinstatement without awarding any backwages. Though it is submitted by the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the petitioner-Corporation that the 2nd respondent-workman is not entitled for any attendant benefits, but no such relief is granted by the Tribunal. Taking into account the fact that the Tribunal has used its discretion under Section 11-A of the Industrial Disputes Act, and also keeping in mind the length of service the 2nd respondent has put in after reinstatement pursuant to the award of the Tribunal, this Court is of the view that it is not a fit case to interfere with the award passed by the Tribunal, in this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution. 5. The writ petition is devoid of merit and it is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. ______________________ R. SUBHASH REDDY, J 3rd March 2009. ajr