HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT PETITION No. 436 OF 2004 Dated 23rd October, 2009. Between G.Venkateshwarlu ..Petitioner And The Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Warangal rep. By its Presiding Officer, and, anr. …Respondents. HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT PETITION No. 436 OF 2004 ORDER: The petitioner, a driver in the service of the Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation (for brevity, ‘ the APSRTC’), having succeeded in I.D.No.5 of 1995 before the Industrial Tribunal- cum-Labour Court, Warangal, in so far as setting aside of the order of his removal from service is concerned, is before this Court aggrieved by the denial of back-wages for the period that he remained out of service. The petitioner was subjected to disciplinary proceedings by the APSRTC in connection with an accident which occurred on 20.05.1994 while he was driving a bus on the route Parkal to Bhadrachalam via Narsampet, whereby a pedestrian met with his death. The petitioner was charged with rash and negligent driving, thereby resulting in the death of a pedestrian; lack of anticipation and for not taking precautionary measures to avert the accident. After due enquiry, the petitioner was removed from service by order dated 06.10.1994. Aggrieved thereby, he approached the Labour Court by way of an application under Section 2-A(2) of the Act of 1947 which was taken on file as I.D.No.5 of 1995. The Labour Court, having found that the enquiry conducted by the APSRTC was in accordance with law, re-appreciated the evidence in exercise of its jurisdiction under Section 11-A of the Act of 1947 and came to the conclusion that the findings of the enquiry officer were against the material evidence that was collected during the course of the domestic enquiry. Holding so, the Labour Court set aside the order of removal dated 06.10.1994 and directed reinstatement of the petitioner in service with continuity of service but without back-wages. Aggrieved by the denial of back-wages by the Labour Court, the petitioner preferred the present Writ Petition. Heard Sri V.Viswanatham, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sri Sridhar, learned Counsel, representing Sri Sridhar Reddy Pottigari, learned Standing Counsel for the APSRTC. After the judgment of the Supreme Court in J.K.SYNTHETICS LTD v. K.P. AGRAWAL[1], the legal position with regard to payment of back-wages stands crystallized and is no longer open to debate. The Supreme Court held that entitlement to back-wages is no longer automatic upon an order of reinstatement in service and that the Labour Court would have to apply its mind in this regard and only then issue a direction in fit cases with regard to payment of full or partial back-wages. Other factors, such as the length of service, nature of the appointment, nature of the termination and also of the reinstatement would have to be taken into account. In cases of ‘misconduct reinstatement’, entitlement to back-wages would be viewed from a very different perspective as compared to cases of reinstatement resulting from ‘illegal termination’. Further, the gainful employment of the employee elsewhere during the period that he remained out of service also has to be taken into account by the Labour Court. In the present case, the Labour Court having dealt at length with the matter on its merits, that is, with regard to re-appreciation of the evidence adduced in the domestic enquiry, directed that the APSRTC shall reinstate the petitioner in service with continuity of service but without back-wages. The Labour Court did not apply its mind to the issue of back-wages at all, in as much as no reasons are forthcoming from the Award of the Labour Court as to why the petitioner was denied back-wages. It is also pertinent to note that the petitioner had not only sought full back-wages but also all other attendant benefits, in his claim petition filed before the Labour Court. The claim with regard to attendant benefits has not been dealt with at all by the Labour Court. In such view of the matter, this Court has no other option except to remand the matter to the Labour Court for adjudication afresh in so far as the issues of attendant benefits and back-wages are concerned. Keeping in mind the fact that this litigation has already consumed sufficient time, it is appropriate that the matter be given a quietus as soon as possible. The Labour Court shall allow both parties to adduce fresh evidence, oral and documentary, afford them an opportunity of hearing and then decide the entitlement of the petitioner to back-wages and attendant benefits. This exercise shall be completed expeditiously, preferably within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The Writ Petition is disposed of with the aforesaid directions. No costs. ---------------------------- JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DATE: 23-10-2009. Msnr. [1] (2007) 2 SCC 433