A. Dasaratha Raju, Karimnagar ... vs The D.M., Apsrtc Another
2022 Latest Caselaw 801 Tel

 THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA
                                           AND
      THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI

                      WRIT APPEAL No.918 OF 2009

JUDGMENT: (Per the Hon'ble the Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma)

        The appellant/writ petitioner has filed the present writ

appeal being aggrieved by the order dated 01.12.2008 passed by

the learned Single Judge dismissing W.P.No.16189 of 1996

which was filed for grant of full back wages.

        The undisputed facts of the case reveal that the

appellant/writ petitioner was charge-sheeted for committing

cash and ticket irregularities (misappropriation) and an order

was passed inflicting the punishment of removal from service.

The appellant/writ petitioner preferred an appeal as well as a

revision in the matter and both the appeal and the revision were

dismissed.        The appellant/writ petitioner thereafter preferred a

petition under Section 2-A(2) of the Industrial Tribunals Act,

1947 i.e., I.D.No.193 of 1992 (Old I.D.No.327 of 1988) and the

Labour Court, after scanning the entire evidence, has arrived at

a conclusion that there were certain procedural irregularities in

the departmental enquiry.                 The Labour Court has passed an

Award       dated      10.02.1994          directing       reinstatement   of   the

appellant/writ petitioner without back wages.                         Not being
                                 2




satisfied with the reinstatement, vide Award dated 10.02.1994,

a writ petition in W.P.No.16189 of 1996 was preferred by the

appellant/writ petitioner claiming back wages and the learned

Single Judge has dismissed the writ petition. The learned Single

Judge has referred to the judgments delivered by the Hon'ble

Supreme Court in the cases of Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangatham

vs. S.C.Sharma1, U.P.State Brassware Corporation Limited

vs. Uday Narain Pandey2 and J.K.Synthetics Limited vs.

K.P.Agrawal and another3 and has held that the workman has

never shown that he was not gainfully employed.

       Learned counsel for the appellant/writ petitioner has filed

certain documents and his contention is that the prayer for

grant of back wages was made before the Labour Court and the

Labour Court has not granted any back wages to the

appellant/writ petitioner.   Learned counsel has placed heavy

reliance upon the judgment delivered by a Division Bench of the

unified High Court for the States of Telangana and Andhra

Pradesh in Depot Manager, APSRTC, Guntur vs. Ch. Suresh

Babu4 and his contention is that as no reasons have been

assigned for not granting back wages, in the light of the


1
  (2005) 2 SCC 363
2
  (2006) 1 SCC 479
3
  (2007) 2 SCC 433
4
  2019(2) ALD 264 (DB)
                                3




aforesaid judgment, the appellant/writ petitioner is entitled for

back wages.

       This Court has carefully gone through the aforesaid

judgment and the Division Bench in the aforesaid case has dealt

with the judgments in the cases of Deepali Gundu Surwase vs.

Kranti Junior Adhyapak Mahavidyalaya (D.ED.)5, Rajasthan State

Road Transport Corporation, Jaipur vs. Phool Chand (Dead)

Through L.Rs.6, M.L. Singla vs. Punjab National Bank7, Hindustan

Tin Works Pvt. Ltd. vs. The Employees of Hindustan Tin Works

Pvt. Ltd.8, Devendra Pratap Narain Rai Sharma vs. State Of Uttar

Pradesh9, J.K.Synthetics Ltd (supra), General Manager, Haryana

Roadways vs. Rudhan Singh10, U.P. State Brassware Corporation

Ltd (supra), Shambhu Nath Goyal vs. Bank Of Baroda11, A.L.Kalra

vs. Project And Equipment Corporation Of India Ltd.12, Bhuvnesh

Kumar Dwivedi vs. Hindalco Industries Ltd.13, Shobha Ram Raturi

vs. Haryana Vidyut Prasaran Nigam Limited14, U.P. State Road

Transport Corporation vs. Vinod Kumar15, Union Of India vs.




5
  (2013) 10 SCC 324
6
  (2018) 0 Supreme (SC) 896
7
  (2018) 0 Supreme (SC) 898
8
  (1979) 2 SCC 80
9
  AIR 1962 SC 1334
10
   (2005) III LLJ 4 SC
11
   (1983) 4 SCC 491
12
   AIR 1984 SC 1361
13
   (2014) 11 SCC 85
14
   AIR 2016 SC 157
15
   (2008) 1 SCC 115
                                     4




P.Gunasekaran16, Management of Tamil Nadu State Transport

Corporation        (Coimbatore)   Limited   vs.   M.Chandrasekaran17,

Management Of Bharat Heavy Electricals Limited vs. M.Mani18

and The Workmen of Firestone Tyre And Rubber Co. of India

(Pvt.) Ltd. vs. The Management19

          This Court has carefully gone through the aforesaid

judgment and is of the considered opinion that grant of back

wages is not a mechanical exercise. It differs from case to case

based upon the facts of the case.

          In the present case, the appellant/writ petitioner was

involved in cash and ticket irregularities (misappropriation).

The Labour Court, as the charges were proved based upon some

carbon copy document i.e.,Ex.M.2, has granted the relief of

reinstatement to the appellant/writ petitioner, keeping in view

the totality of the circumstances of the case and also the

misconduct, and has categorically held that the appellant/writ

petitioner is not entitled for back wages.

          This Court also, after careful consideration of the Award,

is of the opinion that the facts and circumstances of the case do




16
     (2015) 2 SCC 610
17
     (2016) 16 SCC 16
18
     (2018) 1 SCC 285
19
     AIR 1973 SC 1227
                                 5




not warrant award of back wages and therefore, no case for

interference is made out in the matter.

      Resultantly, the writ appeal stands dismissed.

      Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand

closed. There shall be no order as to costs.


                                    ________________________
                                    SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA, CJ


                                     _______________________
                                      ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI, J

21.02.2022

JSU