HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA WRIT PETITION No. 4132 of 2004 DATED 13th October, 2011 BETWEEN The Depot Manager, APSRTC, Pulivendula Depot, Cuddapah District …….Petitioner and The Industrial Tribunal cum Labour Court, Ananthapur, Rep. by its Presiding Officer, and anr ……Respondents HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA WRIT PETITION No.4132 of 2004 ORDER: Challenging the Award dated 4.8.2003 passed by the first respondent-Labour Court, Ananthapur, in I.D.No. 281 of 2000 the Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation (APSRTC) filed the present Writ Petition. The second respondent-workman was appointed as a Driver on daily wage basis in the service of the petitioner-APSRTC on 23.05.1996 subject to verification of the genuineness of his driving licence. Later the petitioner-APSRTC found the driving licence of the petitioner was not genuine. The second respondent- workman submitted his explanation to the show cause notice dated 23.04.1998 issued to him and not satisfied with the same, he was removed from service on 30.04.1998. Aggrieved by the same, the second respondent- workman stated to have filed an appeal and the same is pending consideration. That apart, the second respondent-workman raised an industrial dispute before the first respondent-Labour Court in ID.No. 281 of 2000. Upon consideration of the evidence on record, the Labour Court by its Award dated 4.8.2003 set aside the removal order passed against the second respondent- workman and directed reinstatement in service with continuity of service and for payment of half of the back wages from the date of filing the claim petition and full back wages form the date of publication of the Award till the date of reinstatement. Hence, the present Writ Petition. The learned Standing Counsel for the petitioner- APSRTC vehemently contended that the driving licence being No.291/83 obtained by the second respondent- workman is only to drive Light Motor Vehicle, but the Heavy Goods Vehicle (HGV) licence produced by him is a fake document. He submitted that the Labour Court without considering the genuineness of the driving licence produced by the second respondent-workman passed the Award and therefore the same is liable to be set aside. The learned Counsel for the second respondent- workman while reiterating the counter averments submitted that the workman had submitted a detailed explanation on 30.4.1998 duly enclosing the certificate issued by the Additional Licensing Authority, Kadapa dated 29.4.1998 wherein it was stated that as per their office records, the driving licence No.291 of 1983 issued to him ( the second respondent-workman) was the genuine document and he was permitted under document dated 18.09.1986 to drive Heavy Passenger Vehicle by the Licensing Authority, Kadapa. He further stated that even as per the circular of the petitioner-APSRTC being No.PD/88/1995, dated 13.10.1995, the driving licence produced by the workman was genuine. He asserted that the appeal preferred by the workman against the order of removal from service was not considered and disposed of by the appellate authority till the date of filing of the impugned Industrial Dispute. He further stated that pursuant to the Award of the Tribunal, the workman was reinstated in service on 24.3.2004 and he is continuing as such. He therefore prayed for dismissal of the Writ Petition. From the circular Rc.No.11341/84/95 dated 2.9.1996 issued by the Regional Transport Officer, Kadapa, it is clear that the petitioner was issued Driving Licence No. 291/83 to drive LMV only; and that on his further application, he got MGV endorsement by the Additional Licensing Authority, Hyderabad vide C.No.1928/A6/HE/85 and again by the Additional Licensing Authority, Kadapa on production of FAC.No.909471, dt.22.10.1995; and that the Driving licence was renewed from time to time and lastly it was renewed vide DLR.No.2099/B4/95 w.e.f. 24.4.1992 to 23.4.1998 subject to confirmation of the genuineness of the HGV endorsement said to have been obtained from the Additional Licensing Authority, Hyderabad. It was further observed in the said circular that genuineness or otherwise of the HGV endorsement may be ascertained from licensing authority, Hyderabad (East). When the second respondent-workman approached the Additional Licensing Authority, Kadapa, they issued the endorsement vide proceedings No.Dis/B3/98 dated 29.4.1998 to the effect that the second respondent- workman is authorized to drive Light Motor Vehicles and Heavy Passengers Vehicles and Badge No.6482/CU was issued to him on his Driving Licence No. 291/83 and the same was renewed from 24.4.1998 to 23.4.2001. Basing on the above information furnished by the Transport officials, the Labour Court observed that even if the HGV endorsement from RTA, Hyderabad, is not genuine, the endorsement of HPV obtained by the workman from Kadapa is sufficient enough to continue him in job. In as much as the second respondent-workman is having Heavy Passenger Vehicle driving licence, it would be sufficient to continue in service and the same is also not in dispute. Holding that the petitioner-APSRTC authorities without proper verification of the facts, passed the order of removal from service against petitioner and as such the same was set aside, the Labour Court rightly allowed the Industrial Dispute raised by the second respondent- workman directing the petitioner-APSRTC to reinstate him in service with continuity of service and pay him half of the back wages from the date of filing of the claim petition and full back wages from the date of publication of the Award till the date of reinstatement. For the foregoing discussion, I do not see any merit in the Writ Petition and the same is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. --------------------------------------------- JUSTICE ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA Dated 13th October, 2011. Msnro