THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.V.RAMANA Writ Petition No.1220 of 2005 Dated: 21st April, 2006 Between: L.Malla. …..PETITIONER AND APSRTC, rep by its Managing Director, Musheerabad, Hyderabad & another. ….RESPONDENTS THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.V.RAMANA W.P.No.1220 of 2005 ORDER: This writ petition is filed questioning the award of the Labour court passed in I.D.No.66 of 1999, dated 13-8-2001, insofar as denying the back-wages and consequently direct the respondent Corporation to pay the back-wages with all consequential benefits. The petitioner who is a Driver of the respondent organization was charge-sheeted on the ground that he involved in an accident. The petitioner submitted his explanation denying the charges leveled against him, and the Disciplinary Authority, having not satisfied with the explanation of the petitioner, ordered an enquiry, and based on the enquiry report, removed the petitioner from service, vide order dated 08.01.1998. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner raised an industrial dispute in I.D. No. 66 of 1999 and the Labour Court, wherein the Labour Court, by order dated 13.08.2001 directed the respondent- Corporation to reinstate the petitioner into service, but however denied the back-wages taking into consideration the memo filed by the petitioner dated 13-8-2001, which reads as under: “The petitioner is not pressing for back-wages if the respondent does not oppose the reinstatement with all other consequential benefits as he is suffering a lot due to unemployment for the last many years.” Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that though the Labour Court came to the conclusion that the charges leveled against the petitioner are not proved, taking into consideration of the memo filed by the petitioner, not pressing for back-wages if the respondents reinstate the petitioner with all consequential benefits, ordered reinstatement with continuity of service, without backwages, and the order of the Labour Court in denying the attendant benefits is arbitrary and illegal, and prayed that the writ petition be allowed and the respondents be directed to pay the backwages and all other attendant benefits. The respondents filed counter affidavit. Learned Standing Counsel for the respondent-Corporation reiterating the counter averments submitted that the Labour Court, after considering the entire material on record and the memo filed by the petitioner, not pressing for back wages, modified the punishment of removal from service to that of reinstatement with continuity of service and denied the back- wages, and therefore, there are no reasons to interfere with the same. Heard the learned counsel at length and perused the memo filed by the petitioner. The Labour Court, having found that there is no charge proved against the petitioner, directed the respondent-Corporation to reinstate the petitioner with continuity of service, but it declined the relief of back wages, as the petitioner filed a memo not pressing for back wages. The Labour Court, having found that there is no charge proved against the petitioner and having directed the respondent-Corporation to reinstate the petitioner with continuity of service, is expected to award attendant benefits while reinstating the petitioner with continuity of service. Since the petitioner filed a memo not pressing for the back- wages, the Labour Court is right in denying the back wages, but not justified in not granting attendant benefits. In the circumstances, the writ petition is allowed. In addition to the reinstatement of the petitioner with continuity of service, the petitioner is also entitled to all other attendant benefits except back- wages which was not pressed by the petitioner himself. No costs. ___________________ (N.V. RAMANA, J.) Date:21st April, 2006. Grk