IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA WRIT PETITION NO : 15594 of 2004 Between: M. Narayana, E.203556, S/o. Narasappa, Ex. Conductor, APSRTC, Rajendranagar Depot, Ranga Reddy District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Industrial Tribunal No. II, Rep by its Chairman, Chandravihar, M.J. Road, Hyderabad. 2 The Depot Manager, APSRTc, Rajendranagar Depot, Ranga Reddy 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 order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus declaring the Proceedings No. 02/62(68)/98-RJNR, dt. 18-11-98 and Award dated 22-12-2003 in ID No. 33/2002 notified vide GORT.NO.61, dt. 19-1-2004 and published on 22-2-2004 as illegal, arbitrary and further direct the respondents to re-instate the petitioner into service with continuity of service with full back wages from the date of termination till the date of re-instatement with all consequential benefits and pass such other and further order or orders as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.P.RAGHAVENDRA REDDY Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR LABOUR The Court made the following : THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA W.P.No.15594 of 2004 ORDER: 1. This writ petition is filed seeking a Writ of Mandamus declaring the proceedings No.02/62(68)/98-RJNR, dated 18.11.1998 and the award dated 22.12.2003 passed in I.D.No.33 of 2002 on the file of the 1st respondent-Industrial Tribunal-II, Hyderabd, notified vide GORt.No.61, dated 19.01.2004 and published on 22.02.2004, as illegal and arbitrary. A consequential direction was also sought to direct the respondents to reinstate the petitioner into service with continuity of service with full back wages from the date of termination till the date of re-instatement with all consequential benefits. 2 The petitioner is stated to be a Conductor in the 2nd respondent corporation and he was charge sheeted for certain irregularities alleged to have been committed by him while issuing tickets to the passengers. It is stated that a domestic enquiry was conducted and the petitioner was found guilty of the charges levelled against him. Subsequently, he was removed from service by order dated 18.11.1998, which was confirmed by the revisional as well as appellate authorities. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner approached the 1st respondent-Industrial Tribunal by filing I.D.No.33 of 2002. Since the petitioner was called absent and set ex parte, the 1st respondent-Industrial Tribunal on a consideration of the entire material available on record, passed an award dated 22.12.2003 holding that the order of removal is justified. Aggrieved by the same, the present writ petition is filed. 3 Heard both sides. 4 A perusal of the award under challenge clearly reveals that the petitioner having collected the fare of Rs.2.50 paise each from four passengers failed to issue tickets. In the normal course, this Court would have remanded the matter to the Industrial Tribunal for fresh consideration, but for the reason that this writ petition is pending for the last more than five years and the award was passed by the Industrial Tribunal as far back on 22.12.2003, this Court is of the view that it would not be desirable to remand the matter to the Industrial Tribunal for fresh consideration. Further the petitioner was removed from service in the year 1998 and he is out of service for the last 11 years. 5 Since the charge leveled against the petitioner appears to be trivial in nature and he was in service for a period of eight years from 1990 to 1998, this Court deems it appropriate to direct the 2nd respondent to instate the petitioner into service as conductor afresh without any backwages. 6 The writ petition is accordingly disposed of with a direction to the 2nd respondent corporation to reinstate the petitioner as conductor afresh without backwages or attendant benefits. So far as the reckoning of service put in by the petitioner during 1990 to 1998 is concerned, the same may be taken into consideration only for the purpose of terminal benefits. No order as to costs. ____________________________ (GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA, J) 24-07-2009 Gsn.