IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE NINETEENTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No.16832 of 1999 Between: 1 A.P.S.R.T.C., Rep. by its Managing Director Mushirabad, Hyderabad 2 The Depot Manager, A.P.S.R.T.C., Narayanakhed Depot, Medak District. ..... PETITIONER(S) AND 1 M Krishnaiah S/o Venkaiah, R/o Kancharpally, Nalgonda Mandal, Nalgonda District 2 The Labour Court-II, Rep. by its Presiding Officer, Hyderabad. .....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 issue a Writ order or direction especially in the nature of a Writ of Certiorari calling for the records relating to the impugned award Dt. 19/3/98 made in I.D.No.110/94, Labour Court-II, Hyderabad published on 30/4/98 directing reinstatement of 1st Respondent into service with continuity of service though without backwages and quash the same as being illegal without jurisdiction and invalid and pass such other order or orders just and necessary in the circumstances of the case. Counsel for the Petitioners : SMT.B.G.UMA DEVI Counsel for the Respondent No.1 : None Counsel for the Respondent No.2 : GP FOR LABOUR The Court made the following : HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No.16832 of 1999 ORAL ORDER : This writ petition is ﬁled by the Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation (for brevity “the Corporation”) challenging the Award, dated 19-03-1998, in I.D.No.110 of 1994, passed by the Labour Court-II, Hyderabad (for brevity “the Labour Court”). 2. The ﬁrst respondent is appointed as Conductor in the service of the Corporation. On the ground that he was involved in cash and ticket irregularities, a charge sheet, dated 24-03- 1990, was issued to him framing three charges. Thereafter, domestic enquiry was conducted and by order, dated 21-02- 1991, the ﬁrst respondent was removed from service on the ground that the charges levelled against him were proved. Questioning the validity of the said removal order, the ﬁrst respondent raised a dispute in I.D.No.110 of 1994 before the Labour Court. By impugned Award, dated 19-03-1998, the Labour Court, though approved the ﬁndings recorded in the domestic enquiry, however, exercising the power under Section 11-A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for brevity “the Act”) ordered reinstatement of the ﬁrst respondent into service without backwages. Aggrieved by the same, the Corporation has preferred the present writ petition. 3. This writ petition was ﬁled on 04-08-1999 and by order, dated 11-08-1999, passed in W.P.M.P.No.20895 of 1999, this Court rejected to grant the interim relief of stay of operation of the impugned Award, dated 19-03-1998. In that view of the matter, it is stated that the ﬁrst respondent was reinstated into service in the year 1999 and is being continued in service. 4. It is contended by the learned Standing Counsel for the Corporation that though the charges framed against the ﬁrst respondent were proved in the domestic enquiry and the ﬁndings recorded in the domestic enquiry were approved by the Labour Court, it has erroneously ordered for reinstatement of the ﬁrst respondent into service and, therefore, prays to set aside the impugned Award of the Labour Court. 5. Though the Labour Court has approved the ﬁndings recorded in the domestic enquiry, however, in the present case, the Labour Court has exercised its discretionary power under Section 11-A of the Act and ordered for reinstatement of the ﬁrst respondent into service without backwages and without giving any attendant benefits, namely increments etc. 6. It is also to be noticed that in view of the refusal to grant stay of operation of the impugned Award, the ﬁrst respondent was reinstated into service in the year 1999 and after reinstatement he has completed nearly 9 years of service. From the material on record, there is no past misconduct noticed against the ﬁrst respondent and it is not brought to the notice of this Court any misconduct on the part of the ﬁrst respondent even after his reinstatement in the year 1999. 7. Further, there is no appearance on behalf of the ﬁrst respondent. Though there is an endorsement by the oﬃce to the eﬀect that notice is served on the ﬁrst respondent, surprisingly, there is no document in proof of service of notice. 8. Taking into account the fact that the Labour Court has exercised its discretion under Section 11-A of the Act and as the ﬁrst respondent has completed nearly about 9 years of service after his reinstatement, I am of the considered view that it is not a ﬁt case to interfere with the impugned Award passed by the Labour Court, exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, at this point of time. 9. For the aforesaid reasons, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed as having no merits. 10. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. ________________________ R.SUBHASH REDDY, J 19-11-2008. Msr HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No.16832 of 1999 19-11-2008 Msr