HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED AND HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT APPEAL NO. 2185 OF 2003 Between: The Depot Manager, A.P. State Road Transport Corporation, Governerpet-II Depot, Vijayawada ………….Appellant AND Sri K. Venkateswara Rao, Driver ………….Respondent JUDGMENT: (Per Hon'ble Sri Justice Ghulam Mohammed) Challenging the order-dated 09.01.2003 passed in Writ Petition No. 21638 of 2002 by the learned single Judge of this Court, the present Writ Appeal is filed. Brief facts of the case are that the respondent herein was appointed as Driver in the appellant- Corporation. The respondent while working at Bhaskararaopet Depot applied for leave from 30.6.1992 for one month but the appellant- Corporation treated the said period as unauthorized absence and dismissed from service on 16.1.1993 by issuing a charge sheet alleging that he has absented from duty from 30.6.1992 to 29.7.1992 and produced sick certificate of Government Hospital, Vijayawada upto 29.7.1992 to cover up the absence which resulted in dislocation of work and inconvenience to the travelling public besides loss of revenue to the Corporation. Aggrieved by the same, the respondent raised an industrial dispute vide I.D.No. 75 of 1998 and the Labour Court by order dated 5.10.2001 set aside the removal order dated 16.1.1993 and directed the appellant herein to reinstate the respondent into service with continuity of service but with backwages from 17.2.1998 till reinstatement. Aggrieved by the same, the APSRTC preferred Writ Petition and the learned single Judge dismissed the Writ Petition confirming the order passed by the Labour Court. Aggrieved by the same, the APSRTC filed the present Writ Appeal. The learned Standing Counsel appearing for the appellant-Corporation submits that the respondent is not entitled for backwages since he has absented from duty unauthorisedly from 30.6.1992 to 29.7.1992, and he has not worked for which he is claiming wages, therefore, the Labour Court ought not to have granted backwages to him. On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent submits that the order of the Labour Court is quite reasonable and therefore, the learned Single Judge of this Court has not interfered with the order passed by the Labour Court and dismissed the Writ Petition. Heard the learned counsel appearing for both sides and also perused the material made available on record. We find some force in the contention of the learned standing counsel appearing for the appellant-Corporation that the respondent is claiming wages for the work not done by him. As seen from the record, the respondent was removed from service in the year 1993 and he has raised the dispute in the year 1998 after a lapse of five years. It is further on record that after removal from service inspite of best efforts by the respondent, he could not secure any job. Therefore, in our considered view, ends of justice would be met if the respondent herein is granted half of the backwages instead of full backwages. Accordingly, the Writ Appeal is allowed in part modifying the award dated 5.10.2001 passed by the Labour Court in I.D.No. 75 of 1998, to the extent of granting only 50% of the backwages instead of full backwages from the date of raising the dispute i.e. from 17.2.1998 till reinstatement. There shall be no order as to costs. ________________________ GHULAM MOHAMMED, J _____________________ SANJAY KUMAR, J DATE: 07.09.2011 KA ... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1. 2 CD copies.