IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY SECOND DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No: 17537 of 1999 Between: Basheer Khan S/o. Chand Khan H.No.16-2-759, Gaddiannaram, Dilsukhnagar, Hyderabad. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Depot Manager, A.P.S.R.T.C., Dilsukhnagar Depot, Dilsukhnagar, Hyderabad. 2 The Presiding Officer, Labour Court-I, Hyderabad, A.P., .....RESPONDENT(S) 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 to call for the record relating to the award in I.D.NO.13/95, dated:7.12.1996 on the ﬁle of Labour Court-I Hyderabad and modify the same as arbitrary and illegal by way of issue of writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ or order or orders as this Hon'ble Court may bedeem ﬁt and proper in the circumstance of the case Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.B.G.RAVINDER REDDY Counsel for the Respondent No.: MR.K.MADHAVA REDDY The Court made the following : ORDER: The petitioner who was working as a driver in the Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation (for short – ‘the Corporation’) attached to its depot at Dilshuknagar in Hyderabad ﬁled this writ petition questioning the award of the Labour Court-I, Hyderabad, in I.D.NO.13/95, dated 07-12-1996. The case of the petitioner is that he was appointed as a driver in the Corporation in 1978 and while he was driving the bus belonging to the Corporation on route No.95(p) from Premavathipet to Kothi on 05-04-1989 at about 22.50 hours a fatal accident occurred and so alleging that he was negligently driving the bus, the Corporation initiated departmental proceedings against him. Ultimately an order of removal from service was passed against him in the departmental proceedings. Aggrieved by the order of removal from service, he raised an industrial dispute in I.D.No.13/95 on the ﬁle of the Labour Court I at Hyderabad. The Labour Court, having discussed the evidence on record at length, found him not guilty of the charge framed against him and set aside the order of removal from service, but however, by further discussion that soon after receipt of the order of appointment and posting he may forget the charge levelled against him, passed an order of reinstatement but as a ‘fresh Driver’ for all purposes except for pensionary benefits. Hence, the writ petition. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned standing counsel for the respondent-Corporation. The learned counsel for the petitioner stated that there is no pension scheme. Since the order of removal from service was already set aside by the Labour Court and since the ﬁndings recorded by the Labour Court became ﬁnal, there is nothing to discuss about the charge framed against the petitioner in this writ petition. In view thereof, the only question that arises for consideration is whether the Labour Court is correct in ordering reinstatement of the petitioner as a ‘fresh driver’ in spite of the fact that the charge levelled against him is not proved. The reasoning given by the Labour Court for ordering such fresh appointment is that if the petitioner is not appointed with lesser pay, soon after receipt of the order of appointment and posting, he may forget about the incident and the charge of negligence levelled against him. The reasoning given by the Labour Court does not appear to be sound and cannot be accepted. When once the charge levelled against the petitioner is not proved, there is no reason at all for not aﬀording him the beneﬁt of reinstatement pursuant to his earlier appointment. Inasmuch as the petitioner was appointed in 1978 and was removed from service by the order dated 28-02-1990 and ordered to be reinstated as a fresh driver by the award dated 07-12-1996, there is no reason to deprive him the beneﬁt of continuity of service and attendant benefits. Though the petitioner is not entitled to the back wages in view of the analogy ‘No Work - No Pay’, in view of the ﬁndings recorded by the Labour Court itself to the eﬀect that the charge levelled against him is not proved, there is no reason for depriving him the beneﬁt of past service and the attendant benefits. Therefore, the award of the Labour Court is set-aside only to the extent of ordering ‘reinstatement as a fresh Driver’ and the same shall be treated as ‘reinstatement with continuity of service and all other attendant beneﬁts’. At the same time, it is made clear that the petitioner is not entitled for any back wages for the period for which he was out of service i.e. from the date of removal till the date of reinstatement. It is also clariﬁed that he is entitled to the wages for the period covered under suspension. Further the period from the date of removal till the date of reinstatement shall be treated as not on duty. Accordingly, the writ petition is partly allowed. No order as to costs. _______________________ R.SUBHASH REDDY, J 22nd October 2008 CVRK