IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE FOURTEENTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION No. 5457 of 2008 Between: Md.Shafiuddin S/o.Md.Basheeruddin, R/o.6-5-96, Lalsabgadda, Sangareddy Medak District ..... PETITIONER AND 1 APSRTC,Musheerabad, Hyderabad, rep.by its Managing Director. 2 The Depot Manager, APSRTC Bus Depot, Sangareddy,Medak District .....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 an appropriate writ or direction particularly one in the nature of writ of Certiorari quash the impugned award dated 31.10.2006 made inID.No.134 of 2004 on the file of Labour court-II, Hyderabad published on 26.3.2007 in so far as not granting the consequential benefits for the involved period as arbitrary, unjust and in violative of Art.14,&16 21 of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents corporation to arrange the all consequential benefits including back wages in the interest of justice and fair play . Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.V.NARASIMHA GOUD Counsel for the Respondents: SMT.B.G.UMA DEVI The Court made the following : ORDER: The petitioner is employed as a Driver in the Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation. He remained absent unauthorisely from 1.10.2003 to 01.07.2004. Charge sheet, dated 23.04.2004 was issued framing necessary charges. The petitioner submitted explanation stating that he had undergone treatment during that period. Not being satisfied with the explanation, the second respondent directed departmental enquiry. Through his order, dated 25.06.2004, the second respondent directed removal of the petitioner. The petitioner approached the Labour Court-II, Hyderabad by filing I.D.No.134 of 2004. Through award, dated 31.10.2006, the Labour Court had set aside the order of removal and directed reinstatement of the petitioner. It was further directed that the petitioner shall not be entitled for any sort of relief for the “involved period”. The grievance of the petitioner is that once a finding was recorded to the effect that there existed justifiable cause for remaining absent, apart from reinstatement, the Labour Court ought to have granted the relief of continuity of service with attendant benefits. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents. It is not as if the Labour Court had given a clean chit to the petitioner. It took note of some extenuating circumstances and directed reinstatement and it was not convinced about extending any other relief, namely monetary relief to the petitioner. However, in framing the relief, the Labour Court did not take note of certain ambiguity. The expression “involved period” is capable of being understood in different ways. This Court is of the view that ends of justice would be met if the same is clarified without extending any monetary benefit to the petitioner. For the foregoing reasons, the writ petition is partly allowed directing that apart from reinstatement, the petitioner shall be entitled to the benefit of continuity of service, but without any monetary benefit. There shall be no order as to costs. _____________ 14.03.2008 kdl ..... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1.2CCs to 2.2CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WP{TRK}