IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD FRIDAY, THE THIRD DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TEN HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. BHAVANI PRASAD W.P.No.8700 of 2001 Between: Y. Jampu Naidu .. Petitioner AND The Court of Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Visakhapatnam and 3 others .. Respondents ORDER: This writ petition is directed against the award in I.D.No.142 of 1998 dated 17-04-2000 on the file of the Industrial Tribunal-cum- Labour Court, Visakhapatnam, insofar as the back wages to the writ petitioner were denied. The writ petitioner’s case is that he joined as L.V. driver in APSRTC under self-employment scheme and was promoted to Grade-II driver on 21-03-1979. Later, he was retired from service with effect from 14-2-1989 against which he filed I.D.No.271 of 1989 and he was directed to be reinstated to the ex-category post as Cleaner or Tailer with 50% back wages with effect from 31-01- 1989. When the award was not implemented, he filed M.P.No.8 of 1992 for back wages and E.P.No.4 of 1994 for implementation of the award. Pending the M.P., the management directed him to stop attend duties with effect from 2-9-1995 against which he filed a memo dated 4-9-1995 in E.P.No.4 of 1994. Then, the management issued a letter dated 8-9-1995 asking him to attend enquiry on 9-9-1995 for alleged insubordination, but no enquiry was conducted. While so, the management issued a charge sheet on 24-10-1995 for which a suitable reply was submitted. The management again issued another charge sheet on 10-11-1995 for insubordination for which also a reply was submitted on 29-11- 1995. E.P.No.4 of 1994 was dismissed on 25-09-1996 and the management completed the enquiry against the writ petitioner on 30-09-1996 and issued a show cause notice on 21-6-1997 for which a reply was given on 11-7-1997. A removal order was passed on 26-08-1997 against which an appeal was preferred and no action was taken on appeal. Then, he filed I.D. seeking reinstatement with effect from 2-9-1995 with back wages and continuity of service. The I.D. was decided holding that he is entitled to reinstatement without back wages, but with continuity of service within one month from the date of publication of the award. The writ petitioner was aggrieved by the denial of back wages claiming that he was not provided the work, implementing the award in I.D.No.271 of 1989 in spite of his approaching the Industrial Tribunal for implementation of the award and he had in fact submitted his sickness certificate along with the letter dated 7-6-1995 showing that there was no unauthorized absence. The petitioner also claimed to have submitted request for extension of sick leave on 31-08-1995 and to have produced fitness certificate on 01-09-1995. As he was not allowed to work by the Mechanical Foreman illegally, the writ petitioner could not have been considered to be guilty of insubordination or unauthorized absence and he did not violate any rule of producing the certificate and counter signature on the certificate within time and there was no basis for the observation of the Industrial Tribunal about the writ petitioner dragging on the proceedings. Hence, the writ petition. The respondents in their counter affidavit claimed that the writ petitioner unauthorizedly absented for his duties from 8-5- 1995 to 12-6-1995 and submitted a sick certificate issued by the Medical Officer, Government Dispensary, Gantyada and later private sick certificate from a medical practitioner. The writ petitioner abstained from duties from 31-08-1995 to 24-10-1995 without prior permission or intimation. Then a charge sheet was issued to the writ petitioner about the unauthorized absence and a detailed enquiry was conducted into the charges and as his explanation was not satisfactory, then the writ petitioner was held guilty of the charges by the Enquiry Officer and on issuance of the show cause notice, he did not give any further convincing reasons to exonerate him. The respondents further contended that the Mechanical Foreman directed the writ petitioner to attend before the Depot Manager as per the practice, but he did not attend before the Depot Manager or the Mechanical Foreman or submitted a sick certificate. However, the Industrial Tribunal correctly passed the award by referring to the long service of the writ petitioner with the Corporation and directed the Corporation to reinstate the writ petitioner without back wages, but with continuity of service. The 1st respondent was stated to have considered the case of the writ petitioner on humanitarian grounds in spite of the charges against him being proved and reasonable and the award does not appear susceptible to any interference. Heard Sri P. Sri Raghu Ram, learned counsel for the writ petitioner and Sri K. Madhava Reddy, learned counsel for the respondents. The point for consideration is whether the denial of back wages to the writ petitioner by the impugned order needs any interference herein? In the impugned award, the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court extensively referred to the factual background and came to the conclusion that the writ petitioner did not produce the sick certificates within time. The Tribunal also observed that the writ petitioner did not attend the enquiry after he submitted his explanation to the show cause notice. The Tribunal was of the opinion that the workman absented from duties without time limit and wantonly avoided the enquiry without reasonable cause. The total period of absence of the writ petitioner was noted to be 417 days from 31-08-1995. The factual events in between were extracted in detail by the Tribunal and the Tribunal concluded that most of the certificates were not produced in time by the writ petitioner and that except one certificate, all other certificates were issued by private doctors. The leave regulations were noted to have been not complied with by the writ petitioner in this regard and as the writ petitioner did not follow the prescribed procedure, the charges levelled against him were established. The Tribunal also noted that during the enquiry, the management itself expressed its readiness to take him into employment, but the writ petitioner did not avail the opportunity. While taking adverse notice of the conduct of the workman and presuming that he is dragging on the proceedings, still the Tribunal noted that the writ petitioner has rendered 20 years service and asking him to leave the service is considered too harsh a punishment to be meted out to the workman. He was, therefore, ordered to be reinstated within one month from the date of publication of the award. The Tribunal observed that he was not entitled to back wages for the period he absented from duties as per the charge sheet and subsequent dates also, but there shall be continuity of service, for service benefits, for this period. The conclusions of the Industrial Tribunal about the conduct of the writ petitioner leading ultimately to the industrial dispute were not the subject of challenge in this writ petition or otherwise in any other proceedings and therefore, the same can be considered to have become final. The charges against the writ petitioner have to be, therefore, concluded to have been established. Still the respondents, as seen from the counter affidavit, had on humanitarian grounds considered the writ petitioner for reinstatement as per the award in I.D.No.142 of 1998 challenged herein and the reasonableness of the award was recognized and accepted by the respondents. When the charges are proved and the unauthorized absence stood unexplained and the conduct of the writ petitioner was not in accordance with the prescribed procedure, the Industrial Tribunal directing reinstatement itself is an act of grace in the interests of justice without any strict legal entitlement for the writ petitioner to be so reinstated and no judicial forum could have held that he is entitled to back wages for the entire period of his absence, which absence was not found to be having any justification whatsoever. Therefore, the writ petition has to fail. The learned counsel for the writ petitioner reads some ambiguity in the operative portion of the award, which referred to that the writ petitioner is not entitled to back wages for the period he absented from duties as per the charge sheet and subsequent dates also. The purport of the said observation is very clear that the writ petitioner is not entitled to wages for the period of his absence from duty for 417 days from 31-08-1995. The period for which the writ petitioner is not entitled to any back wages is that period of 417 days and not any period earlier or later to his reinstatement. The order of the Industrial Tribunal is very clear and needs no elucidation and decided that the reinstatement shall be without back wages, but with continuity of service, within one month from the date of publication of the award. Therefore, the writ petition has to fail and is accordingly dismissed. No costs. _____________________ G. BHAVANI PRASAD, J Date: 03-12-2010 Ksn