IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO WRIT PETITION NO : 20127 of 1998 Between: 1 The Depot Manager, A.P.S.R.T.C., Kukatpalli Depot, Hyderabad. 2 The Divisional Manager, A.P.S.R.T.C., Secunderabad. 3 The Regional Manager, A.P.S.R.T.C., Mushirabad, Hyderabad. ..... PETITIONER(S) AND 1 Smt.K.Anjani Devi W/o K.Balaraju H.No.30-1320,Ananthanagar Colony, Vinayanknagar,Secunderabad- 3, R.R.District. 2 Labour Court.I. 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 to issue an Appropriate Writ,order or Direction,especially in the Nature of a Writ of Certiorari,calling for the records relating to the impugned award dt.7-8-97 made in I.D.No.389/89 on the file of the Labour Court I, Hyderabad published on 20-9-97 directing payment of back wages from the date of removal at the scale of pay in which late K.Balraj was reinstated into service, and quash the same as being illegal, without jurisdction and invalid and pass. Counsel for the Petitioner :MR.K.MADHAVA REDDY Counsel for the Respondent No.: MR.B.VISWANATHA REDDY The Court made the following ORDER : The State owned transport corporation – Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation has filed this writ petition calling in question the award passed on 7.8.1997 in I.D. No. 389 of 1989 which was raised by one Sri K.Balraj who is employed as a conductor with it. The industrial dispute has been raised calling in dispute the order of removal from service passed on 19.11.1988 by the petitioner for the proven misconduct of `cash and ticketing irregularities’ indulged in by him. Entertaining the said industrial dispute, the Labour Court passed an award on 20.3.1992 initially directing the petitioner herein to appoint the petitioner in the immediate lower post as a fresh candidate and denied him the backwages. Calling in question, that award dated 20.3.1992 Sri K.Balraj instituted WP No. 10234 of 1993 in this Court. A learned single Judge through the judgment dated 26.8.1996 remitted the matter back to the Labour Court for purpose of deciding as to whether the petitioner (Sri K.Balraj) is entitled for backwages, if any. Insofar as the reinstatement of the employee is concerned, that part of the award remained undisturbed. Pursuant to these directions issued on 26.8.1996, the Labour Court re- examined the matter and through the impugned award dated 7.8.1997 awarded backwages. The learned Standing Counsel for the APSRTC points out that Sri K.Balraj was reinstated and thereafter unfortunately he died. The matter is now being contested by his wife as the legal representative. Only question that has been liable to be answered is whether the Labour Court is justified in awarding the backwages for the period the employee has been kept out of employment pursuant to the order of the removal passed on 19.11.1988 or not. A host of factors that have got to be taken into account and consideration for regulating the exercise of award of backwages has been set out repeatedly by this Court as well as the Apex Court and the latest on the subject has been spelt out by the Supreme Court in J.K.Synthetics Ltd. V. K.P.Agarwal[1]. Learned Counsel places strong reliance upon the following passage from the said judgment : “….. Therefore, where reinstatement is a consequence of imposition of a lesser punishment, neither backwages nor continuity of service nor consequential benefits, follow as a natural or necessary consequence of such reinstatement. In cases where the misconduct is held to be proved, and reinstatement is itself a consequential benefit arising from imposition of a lesser punishment, award of backwages for the period when the employee has not worked, may amount to rewarding the delinquent employee and punishing the employer for taking action for the misconduct committed by the employee. That should be avoided. Similarly, in such cases, even where continuity of service is directed, it should only be for purposes of pensionary/retirement benefits, and not for other benefits like increments, promotions etc.” Learned counsel therefore contends that no reasons much less valid or tenable ones have been assigned by the Labour Court as to why the deceased Balraj been ordered to be paid backwages at all. Learned counsel would further contend that once the Labour Court concedes in principle that the misconduct attributed to the employee is not liable to be shaken then the question of awarding backwages would amount to rewarding an erring employee for the misconduct far from penalizing him. It has been repeatedly said that reasons offer a clear and precise indication of the application of mind by courts and tribunals to the relevant factors and circumstances. In the absence of any reasons, it will be very difficult to ascertain as to whether only relevant criteria and considerations prevailed or factors which are not relevant have also played their role. Further, if the primary reason for the employee to have been kept out of office is squarely attributable to his blameworthy conduct, then he will not be automatically entitled for payment of backwages upon reinstatement back to duty. Even while awarding backwages, the Labour Court is laible to ascertain as to the steps and measures taken by the employee concerned for securing engagement and only when such steps and measures have not produced the desired result of securing him alternative employment, perhaps backwages could have been awarded. In the instant case, there are no reasons whatsoever have been assigned as to why the backwages have been awarded. For these reasons, the award passed on 7.8.1997 is liable to be set aside and it is accordingly set aside. The writ petition stands allowed. But, however, the 1st respondent – legal representative of the deceased Balraj would be entitled to all service benefits of her deceased husband that flow in her favour pursuant to the award passed on 20.3.1992. -------------------------------------------------------- JUSTICE NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO Dt : 24.3.2008 knk ..... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1.2CCs to 2.2CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WP{KRD} [1] 2007(3) SCJ 792