HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT PETITION No.264 of 2006 Date: December 08, 2010 Between: 1. The Depot Manager, APSRTC, Picket Bus Depot, J.B.S., Secunderabad and another. … Petitioners And 1. M.A. Razack and another. … Respondents * * * HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT PETITION No.264 of 2006 ORDER: The Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation (APSRTC) assails the award dated 16.02.2005 passed by the Additional Industrial Tribunal-cum-Additional Labour Court, Hyderabad in I.D.No.60 of 2002. By the said award, the Labour Court set aside the removal of the first respondent driver from service and directed his reinstatement with continuity of service, attendant benefits and 50% back wages. 2. This Court, by interim order dated 20.02.2006, took note of the fact that the first respondent had been already reinstated in service and granted suspension of the award under challenge only to the extent of award of back wages. 3. In spite of service of notice in this writ petition, the first respondent chose to remain unrepresented. 4. The first respondent entered the service of the APSRTC in the year 1985. He was subjected to disciplinary proceedings in connection with an accident which occurred while he was driving bus No.AP 10Z 891 on 03.6.1999 on the route Hubli to Picket. Due to the collision of the bus with a lorry, the lorry driver met with his death and the conductor, co-driver, lorry cleaner and six passengers sustained grievous injuries. After due inquiry into the matter, the APSRTC removed the first respondent from service by proceeding dated 11.01.2000. Aggrieved thereby, he filed an appeal which was dismissed on 02-02-2002. Thereupon he invoked the jurisdiction of the Labour Court by way of the subject I.D. 5. As the first respondent did not dispute the validity of the inquiry, the Labour Court examined the material on record and found that the lorry driver was himself at fault for having parked the lorry on the road itself. Further, he also failed to switch on the taillights so as to warn the drivers of oncoming vehicles though it was night time. No signs or stones had been placed near the vehicle to warn approaching vehicles. The Labour Court also took into account the fact that the first respondent had been acquitted in the criminal case which was instituted in connection with this accident. The judgment of the criminal court was dated 22.11.2001. The cogent and well-reasoned award of the Labour Court holding that the charges of rash and negligent driving and lack of anticipation were not proved therefore does not warrant interference. 6. In so far as the issue of back wages is concerned, Sri K. Madhava Reddy, learned standing counsel for the APSRTC, fairly conceded that the first respondent had made an averment in his claim petition to the effect that he was not employed during the period that he remained out of the service of the APSRTC. No evidence was adduced by the APSRTC in rebuttal of this statement. Further, the first respondent being a regular driver in the service of the APSRTC had rendered long and loyal service to it for over one and a half decades. In such circumstances, this Court is not inclined to accept the submission made by the learned standing counsel that the first respondent ought to have been denied back wages in their entirety. The Labour Court, keeping in mind the facts and circumstances of the case, directed payment of 50% of the back wages. However, as the Labour Court placed reliance upon the acquittal of the first respondent in the criminal case under judgment dated 22.11.2001, the benefit flowing therefrom cannot be with retrospective effect. As pointed out by the Supreme Court in G.M. Tank v. State of Gujarat[1], oppressive findings recorded in disciplinary proceedings which are contradictory to the acquittal recorded by the criminal court cannot be permitted to operate. However, as held by the Supreme Court such benefit would flow only from the date of acquittal by the criminal court. In such circumstances, the entitlement of the first respondent to claim back wages would be from 22.11.2001 only. 7. The APSRTC is accordingly directed to pay 50% of the back wages from 22.11.2001 up to the date of reinstatement in service of the first respondent. The award under challenge shall stand modified to this extent only and is confirmed in all other respects. 8. The writ petition is allowed in part, but in the circumstances, without any order as to costs. ___________________ SANJAY KUMAR, J Date: December 08, 2010. BSB [1] (2006) 5 SCC 446