IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE SIXTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 23293 of 2000 Between: G Shivaji, S/o late Narsoji, R/o 6-8-2112/142, Ravindranagar Colony, Nalgonda ..... PETITIONER AND The A.P. State Road Transport Corporation, Rep by its Depot Manager, Bus Depot., Nalgonda District. .....RESPONDENT 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 call for the records from the Labour Court-III IV Floor, Chandra Vihar Building, Nampally, Hyderabad in respect of ID No. 7/95 and issue an appropriate Writ or direction particularly one in the nature of Writ of Certiorari and quash the impugned award dt. 14/5/1997 made in ID No. 7/95, published on 14/7/1997 in so far as denying the petitioner the backwages as arbitary, unjust and in violation of Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents corporation to pay the backwages for the interregnum period of removal in the interest of justice and fair play. Counsel for the Petitioner :MR.V.NARASIMHA GOUD Counsel for the Respondent : SMT.B.G.UMA DEVI The Court made the following : HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No : 23293 of 2000 ORDER : The petitioner, who was a Driver retired from the service of the Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation (APSRTC), has ﬁled this writ petition, challenging the award of Labour Court-III, Hyderabad, passed in I.D.No.7 of 1995, dated 14.05.1997, to the extent of denying the backwages. 2. On the ground that the petitioner was unauthorisedly absent from his duties, disciplinary proceedings were initiated against him. A charge sheet, dated 22.11.1992, was issued to the petitioner with the following charges : “1. For having absented for duties unauthorisedly from 20th May 1992 till date without any intention or prior sanction of leave which constitute misconduct under Reg.20(xxvii) and (ix-a) of Employees Conduct Regulations, 1963. 2. For having failed to submit authorized medical certiﬁcate within 48 hours as per the leave Reg. Which constitute misconduct under Reg.20(xxvii) of Conduct Regulations, 1963.” 3. When the petitioner has not given any explanation to the said charges, the respondent- Management has decided to proceed with a regular inquiry and appointed an inquiry oﬃcer. Though the inquiry oﬃcer has issued notices, the petitioner did not respondent to the same. Based on the ﬁndings recorded by the inquiry oﬃcer in his report dated, 21st January 1993, an order of removal was passed. The petitioner has ﬁled appeal before the appellate authority on 30th April 1993, but the same was rejected. As such, he raised an industrial dispute by ﬁling an application under Section 2-A (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’), after A.P.Amendment Act 42 of 1987 came into force. The Tribunal also has come to the conclusion that the charges levelled against the petitioner are technically proved, but however, in exercise of its powers under Section 11-A of the Act, imposed lesser punishment on the petitioner and ordered for his reinstatement with continuity of service and all attendant benefits, but without backwages. 4. It is submitted by learned counsel for petitioner that in this case, though the petitioner has proved that there was valid ground for not attending duties, by adducing evidence under Exs.W-1 to W-7, but inspite of the same, no reason was assigned by the Tribunal for denying backwages. From the rejoinder ﬁled before the Tribunal, it is clear that even on earlier occasion, on a proven misconduct, the petitioner was removed from service with eﬀect from 17.10.1975, but however, pursuant to an award passed by the Tribunal, he was reinstated into service. Even in the present disciplinary proceedings, inspite of giving opportunity, the petitioner has not responded to the same by ﬁling explanation to the charge sheet and also did not choose to participate in the inquiry by appearing before the inquiry oﬃcer. Even the Tribunal has found that the charges are proved, but however, in exercise of discretionary powers conferred under Section 11-A of the Act, it has substituted the punishment of removal with that of reinstatement without backwages. As much as the charges framed against the petitioner are held proved, and further, taking his past conduct into account, no direction can be given for payment of backwages. There is also yet another reason to reject this writ petition, namely, though the award of the Tribunal was passed on 14.05.1997, pursuant to which, the petitioner was reinstated into service and posted at Yadagirigutta Depot on 09.09.1997, and he was also promoted to the post of ADC on 24th February 1999, but however, this writ petition is ﬁled only on 28.11.2000 i.e. nearly three years after the award. Even from the aﬃdavit ﬁled in support of the writ petition, there is no valid explanation given by the petitioner, explaining the abnormal delay and latches on his part, in approaching this Court only after three years of passing the award by the Tribunal. 5. For the aforesaid reasons, I do not ﬁnd any merit in this writ petition for grant of backwages, as much as the Tribunal itself has taken the same view and substituted the punishment of removal and ordered for reinstatement. 6. The writ petition is devoid of merit and it is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. ______________________ R. SUBHASH REDDY, J 6th November 2008 ajr