Telangana High Court
The Depot Manager, vs S.Gopal on 11 July, 2022
Bench: Ujjal Bhuyan, Surepalli Nanda
THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE UJJAL BHUYAN
AND
THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUREPALLI NANDA
W.A.No. 1195 of 2018
JUDGMENT: (Per the Hon'ble the Chief Justice Ujjal Bhuyan)
Heard Mr. N.Praveen Reddy, learned counsel for the
appellant and Mr. Syed Ahmed Ali, learned counsel for the
respondent.
2. Appellant before us is the Depot Manager, Telangana State
Road Transport Corporation.
3. Respondent was serving as conductor with the appellant. On
the ground of misconduct relating to ticketing irregularities,
respondent was subjected to a domestic enquiry whereafter, he was
removed from service by the appellant on 22.03.1996. Appeal filed
by the respondent was rejected by the appellate authority
on 21.12.1996. Related review petition was also dismissed.
4. Thereafter, respondent instituted I.D.No.162 of 2000 before
the jurisdictional Labour Court under Section 2A(2) of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Labour Court passed the award
::2::
dated 28.09.2000. As per the award, the order of removal was set
aside and respondent was directed to be reinstated in service with
the benefit of continuity of service, full backwages and attendant
benefits.
5. Assailing the award, appellant preferred the related writ
petition. By the order dated 22.06.2018, learned Single Judge
disposed of the writ petition by modifying the award to the
following extent:
"In view of the above submissions, this Court is
of the considered opinion that the Labour Court was
not right in passing the Award to the extent of
directing the petitioner to pay full back-wages from
the date of removal from service till the Award is
passed, thereby burdening the petitioner for payment
of back-wages for the period of delay caused by the
respondent in approaching the Labour Court.
Therefore, the Award is modified to the extent
that the respondent is entitled to full back-wages only
from the date of filing the I.D. but not from the date
of removal from service.
With the above modification of the Award, the
writ petition is disposed of. No order as to costs."
::3::
6. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that learned Single
Judge omitted to discuss about the relief of attendant benefits
granted to the respondent by the Labour Court, which would mean
that the same was not disturbed by the learned Single Judge.
7. On going through the order passed by the learned Single
Judge, we find that learned Single Judge had modified the award by
restricting payment of full backwages to the respondent from the
date of filing of I.D.No.162 of 2000.
8. If this be the position, then the attendant benefits that may
accrue to the respondent should also be restricted from the date of
filing of I.D.No.162 of 2000.
9. Learned counsel for the respondent submits that he has no
objection to the above.
10. In view thereof, the writ appeal is disposed of by modifying
the order dated 22.06.2018 passed by the learned Single Judge in
W.P.No.11088 of 2001 by directing that respondent would be
::4::
entitled to full backwages and attendant benefits from the date of
filing of I.D.No.162 of 2000 and not from the date of his removal
from service. No costs.
As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, pending if any, stand
closed.
__________________
UJJAL BHUYAN, CJ
_____________________
SUREPALLI NANDA, J
Date: 11.07.2022
LUR
