THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO.5454 of 2008 Dated: 1.12.2010 Between: P.Ramanababu. …Petitioner And: The Labour Court II & others …Respondents. THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO.5454 of 2008 ORDER: Partly successful in his endeavour before the Labour Court II, Hyderabad in I.D.No:47 of 1998, the petitioner therein is before this Court assailing the Award dated 26.3.2007 passed therein, to the extent it denied him continuity of service, notional increments and back wages. The petitioner entered the service of the A.P State Road Transport Corporation (APS RTC) as a Conductor in the year 1994. He was subjected to disciplinary proceedings in connection with certain cash and ticket irregularities allegedly detected during the check made on 24.11.1996 while he was conducting the bus service on the route-Banswada to Pitlam. Dissatisfied with his explanation, the APS RTC instituted an enquiry into the matter. He was placed under suspension on 5.12.1996 and was thereafter removed from service on 20.8.1997 on the basis of the findings of the Enquiry Officer. His appeal and thereafter his review, having met with failure the petitioner filed the subject I.D before the Labour Court. In the first instance, the Labour Court dismissed the I.D by award dated 5.10.2001. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner filed W.P 4610 of 2002 before this Court which met with the same fate on 14.3.2002. The petitioner thereupon filed an appeal in W.A.No:961 of 2002. At the stage of admission, a Division Bench of this Court, taking note of the legal position emanating from MAKKANSINGH VS. NARAYANPURA AGRICULTURAL SERVICES SOCIETY ( [1] ), directed the APS RTC to produce the original records on the basis of which the disciplinary action taken against the petitioner was founded. Thereafter, by order dated 3.3.2006 a Division Bench, taking note of the fact that in spite of several adjournments being granted the APS RTC failed to produce the original documents, set aside the award under challenge and remitted the matter to the Labour Court for fresh disposal. The Division Bench specifically observed that the APS RTC would have to comply with the interim order passed by the earlier Division Bench on 11.6.2002 with regard to the production of original documents and directed the Labour Court to take the same into consideration and pass appropriate orders. It is pursuant to this remand that the Labour Court undertook an enquiry afresh into the matter and rendered the award dated 26.3.2007. The award under challenge reflects that the APS RTC yet again failed to produce the originals of Exs.M13 and 15 which were the basis for the disciplinary action taken against the petitioner. In the light of this failure, the Labour Court allowed the petition in part setting aside the removal order dated 20.8.1997 and directing the reinstatement of the petitioner in service as a fresh candidate without any other relief. Aggrieved by the denial of continuity of service, attendant benefits and back wages, the petitioner is before this Court. It is pertinent to note the observations made by the Division Bench of this Court while allowing W.A.961 of 2002: “Following the same, we are of the opinion that in the absence of any original documents, it is not safe to place reliance on the same particularly when the appellant denies the very allegations, which are quite serious. There is heavy burden on the respondent herein to prove the said serious charges. In view of the same, we deem it appropriate that both sides shall place any further material before this Court for fresh evidence for arriving at the just conclusion” It was therefore the responsibility of the APS RTC to prove the serious charges levelled against the petitioner. Once the APS RTC failed to discharge this ‘heavy burden’ as posited by the Division Bench, no misconduct can be laid at the door of the petitioner. In that view of the matter, the observation of the Labour Court that the failure of the APS RTC gave life to the case of the petitioner is against the tone and tenor of the Division Bench Judgment. The Labour Court erred further by denying the petitioner the benefit of his past service, overlooking the fact that no misconduct was proved against him. The APS RTC shall accordingly extend the consequential benefits of continuity of service and notional attendant benefits to the petitioner up to the date of his reinstatement pursuant to the award, on 10.8.2002. From the date of such reinstatement, he would be entitled to actual monetary benefits in all respects. However, as the case against the petitioner failed due to the technical reason that the APS RTC could not produce the originals and he was not given a clean chit, I am not inclined to grant him the relief of back wages. The award shall stand modified to the extent indicated above. The writ petition is allowed in part. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________________ Justice SANJAY KUMAR Date:1.12.2010 Gurc. THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO.5454 of 2008 Dated: 1.12.2010 [1] AIR 1987 SC 1892