THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM WRIT PETITION NO. 12269 OF 2004 DT: 25.01.2008 Between: P.Saroja w/o Satyanarayana, Nagulapally, Medak District … Petitioner And : APSRTC, Sangareddy, Medak District rep by its Chief Traffic Manager (DVM) and another … Respondents THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM WRIT PETITION NO. 12269 OF 2004 ORAL ORDER : Heard Mr. V.Narasimha Goud, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Ms B.G.Uma Devi, the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents. The writ petitioner was selected for the post of Conductor Grade-II in the respondent-Corporation, on daily wage basis and after completion of practical training was appointed as casual Conductor on daily wage basis in the 2nd respondent-Depot. She joined duty on 23.6.1999. While the petitioner was conducting a bus on the route Zaheerabad to Gudpally on 6.7.99 the Corporation officials exercised a check at stage No.4 Mannapur. The petitioner was alleged to have issued Rs.6/- denomination tickets and instead of punching the stages of boarding and alighting points as ’01 to 06’ wrongly punched them as ’06 to 01’ and made alterations in the S.R. at stage No.6 Sangapur. The petitioner failed to close the tray numbers of all denominations in the S.R. against stage No.4 and to be found in possession of certain tickets in her shirt pocket which were unpunched. Thereafter, without a regular enquiry and merely after issuing a show cause notice, an order dated 24.8.1999 removing the petitioner from service was passed for involvement in the alleged misconduct. Aggrieved thereby the petitioner lodged a claim u/Sec.2-A(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act 1947 seeking invalidation of the order of removal dated 24.8.1999. The Labour Court, Hyderabad adjudicated this claim as ID No. 153 of 2000 and held that there was no domestic enquiry conducted against the petitioner. The Corporation thereupon sought opportunity to lead evidence to establish the petitioner’s misconduct; was afforded such an opportunity by the Labour Court and did lead evidence oral and documentary. The petitioner – workman also led defense to the charges. The Labour Court on an analysis of the evidence led before it clearly came to the conclusion that no misconduct of the petitioner was established and that the termination of the petitioner was unauthorized. The Labour Court also concluded and rightly, that as a consequence of the illegality of the employer-Corporation, the petitioner was entitled for reinstatement into service. The Labour Court after having recorded the petitioner‘s entitlement for reinstatement into service, however curiously and without any reasons justifying the decision, held that the petitioner is not entitled to back wages since her services were not regularized and she had worked only as a daily wage Conductor. This conclusion of the Labour Court is clearly unsustainable. Though the petitioner was duly selected and appointed as a casual Conductor, her daily wage service as casual Conductor would have continued but for the interruption brought about by the illegal termination of service. The impugned award also denied the petitioner continuity of service and back wages and for no recorded reasons. The deprivation of the benefits of continuity of service and back wages to the petitioner by the Labour Court by the order impugned herein is unsustainable. The Labour Court recorded that not only was the termination not preceded by any domestic enquiry, but even in the evidence marshaled by the management before the Labour Court there was no material to justify the conclusion of the petitioner’s guilt. On this finding of the Labour Court the inference is compelling that the termination of the petitioner from service was wholly unjustified. Though the petitioner worked as a casual Conductor, she was entitled to daily wages from the date of her illegal termination and to continuity of casual service for whatever consequent entitlement such continuity of casual service would benefit the petitioner in future, whether by way of entitlement for regularization of service or any other benefits as per any scheme evolved by APSRTC in this behalf. On the aforesaid analysis the order dated 16.5.2003 in ID No. 153 of 2000 on the file of the Labour Court-II, Hyderabad, is partly set aside. The respondent-APSRTC shall reinstate the petitioner into service with continuity of service and back wages, but in a casual status. The petitioner shall be entitled to the consequent monetary benefits in this behalf. The writ petition is allowed as above. There shall however be no costs in this writ petition. Dt: 25.01.2008 ---------------------------- ---- Pvsn/Tsnr Justice G. Raghuram