THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WP.No.915 of 2004 O R D E R: The Depot Manager, A.P.State Road Transport Corporation (APSRTC), Tandur Depot, Rangareddy District, challenges the award dated 4.9.2003 passed by the Labour Court-I, Hyderabad in I.D.No.52 of 2001, whereby he was directed to reinstate the 1st respondent in service with continuity of service, attendant benefits along with 50% of the back wages. The 1st respondent, a Cleaner in the APSRTC, thereafter promoted as Mechanic Grade-II, raised the dispute before the Labour Court under Section 2-A(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, aggrieved by his removal from service under order dated 15.9.1999 passed by the APSRTC due to his unauthorized absence from duty from 3.3.1999 to 16.3.1999. The Labour Court, having considered the material on record, accepted the version putforth by the 1st respondent that he had fallen sick during the relevant period and had, in fact, submitted a medical certificate issued by a Government hospital in proof thereof. The Labour Court was also of the opinion that the punishment of removal from service imposed upon the 1st respondent was shockingly disproportionate to the charge levelled against him. In such circumstances, the Labour Court exercised its discretion under Section 11-A of the Act of 1947 and directed reinstatement of the 1st respondent in service with continuity of service, attendant benefits and held him entitled to 50% of the back wages from the date of his removal till the date of passing of the award. Aggrieved thereby, the APSRTC filed the present writ petition. At the time of admission of this writ petition on 20.1.2004, this Court granted interim stay of the award under challenge, except to the extent of reinstatement, on the condition that the APSRTC deposit 50% of the amount awarded by the Labour Court duly permitting the 1st respondent to withdraw the same without furnishing any security. Heard Sri K.Madhava Reddy, learned Standing Cousel for the APSRTC and Sri V.Sekhar Reddy, learned counsel, representing Sri G.Ravi Mohan, learned counsel for the 1st respondent. I am not inclined to accept the finding of the Labour Court with regard to the lack of validity of the domestic enquiry held against the 1st respondent, in as much as the Labour Court in paragraph 7 of the award observed that the said domestic enquiry was valid but contradicted itself in paragraph 21 by stating that the enquiry proceedings, from beginning to end, were against the procedure. Be that as it may, the fact remains that the 1st respondent was admittedly absent for only a brief period of time and in such circumstances, the Labour Court rightly came to the conclusion that the punishment of removal from service imposed upon him was shockingly disproportionate. In cases of unauthorized absence, it would be necessary for the disciplinary authority to take into account several factors, such as the length of service rendered by the employee, his past record, the validity and genuineness of the reasons putforth by the employee for such unauthorized absence etc., In the present case, the 1st respondent claimed that he had fallen sick during the relevant period and had duly produced a medical certificate from a Government hospital in support of his statement. In such circumstances, the disciplinary authority ought not to have visited upon him the dire punishment of removal from service. Therefore, I find no reason to interfere with the finding of the Labour Court that the punishment imposed was shockingly disproportionate to the charge levelled and held proved against the 1st respondent. It is however relevant to notice that the Labour Court directed payment of 50% of back wages without furnishing any reasons therefor. There is no discussion whatsoever as to the entitlement of the 1st respondent for payment of back wages. Needless to state, payment of back wages is no longer considered an automatic consequence of a direction of reinstatement in service. The Labour Court is required to apply its mind to the facts presented before it and record reasons for grant or for denial of back wages. In the absence of such an exercise by the Labour Court, as in the present case, I am of the view that the direction of the Labour Court to pay 50% of the back wages to the 1st respondent from the date of his removal up to the date of the award is unsustainable. As the 1st respondent’s removal from service is found to be disproportionate to his misconduct and as half of the amount directed to be paid has already been withdrawn by the 1st respondent pursuant to the interim orders of this Court, I am of the opinion that the interest of justice will be sufficiently served by modifying the award under challenge, directing payment of 25% of the back wages, being the amount already paid to the first respondent, instead of 50% of the back wages. The award shall stand confirmed in all other respects. The writ petition is accordingly allowed in part. No costs. __________________ SANJAY KUMAR,J 05th December, 2009 PNV