HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA WRIT PETITION No. 23781 of 2002 DATED 20th October, 2011. BETWEEN M.A. Hussain …….Petitioner and Labour Court-II, Hyderabad, Rep. by its Presiding Officer, Hyderabad, and anr. ……Respondent HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA WRIT PETITION No. 23781 of 2002 ORDER: Challenging the Award dated 12.12.1997 passed by the first respondent-Labour Court-II, Hyderabad in I.D.No. 213 of 1993 in so far as it relates to denial of back wages as illegal, the petitioner-workman filed the present Writ Petition. The petitioner –workman was appointed as a Driver in the Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation (APSRTC) on 24.07.1977. He was charged sheeted on 29.5.1991 on the ground that he drove the APSRTC bus in a rash and negligent manner and thereby caused an accident. After following the due procedure, the petitioner- workman was removed from service by order dated 18.1.1992. Aggrieved by the same, he raised an industrial dispute in ID.No. 213 of 1993 before the first respondent- Labour Court. The Labour Court upon consideration of the evidence on record while observing that there was no iota evidence to hold that the petitioner-workman drove the bus at the relevant point of time in a rash and negligent manner, allowed the said ID. However, the Labour Court held that the petitioner-workman was not entitled to back- wages. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that pursuant to the Award of the Labour Court, when the petitioner-workman reported to duty on 3.1.1998, the second respondent-APSRTC authorities did not allow him to join duty. He submitted that after the petitioner was making several rounds to its office, he was finally reinstated in service on 29.11.1999. He further submitted that in as much as the Labour Court held that removal of the petitioner-workman was not justified on the ground that there is no evidence to prove his guilt, denial of back wages was not justified while ordering reinstatement. Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner. Perused the case file. The Labour Court passed the impugned Award on 12.12.1997. It is not in dispute that the petitioner-workman was reinstated in service on 29.11.1999. There is no gainsaying of the same. The petitioner-workman retired from service on 30.6.2001 on attaining the age of superannuation. The present Writ Petition was filed in the year 2002 challenging the denial of back wages. The learned Counsel for the petitioner-workman submitted that due to paucity of funds and poverty, the petitioner- workman did not approach the Court within time. The said ground, as it appears general in nature, is not sustainable. It may be noticed that even before the Labour Court also, the petitioner-workman did not actively pursue the matter until the Labour Court insisted him for final arguments and disposal. Considering the same, the Writ Petition is liable to be dismissed on the ground of delay and laches. Further, it is a well settled principle of law that the grant of back wages is no longer considered to be an automatic or inevitable consequence of a direction of reinstatement. As per the law laid down by the Apex Court in J.K.Synthetics Limited Vs. K.P.Agrawal {(2007) 2 SCC 433} the grant of back wages cannot be mechanical. In the case on hand, the Labour Court merely on the ground that there was no iota of evidence on record to prove the guilt of the petitioner, ordered reinstatement. The fact remains that he did not render any actual service to the Corporation during the period that he remained out of its employment. In any event, it is for the workman in the first instance to state before the Labour court that he was not gainfully employed during the period he was out of service. It is not forthcoming either from a reading of the Award or the affidavit filed in support of the Writ Petition that the workman made such a statement before the Labour Court. Further, the learned Counsel for the petitioner did not produce any record in this regard before this Court. In the absence thereof, the workman is not entitled to back wages as of right. For the foregoing reason, I do not see any merit in the Writ Petition, which is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. --------------------------------------------- JUSTICE ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA Dated 20th October, 2011. Msnro