The Depot Manager, Apsrtc., ... vs Mr. M. Linganna, Nizamabad Dist., ...
2022 Latest Caselaw 1056 Tel

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

                    WRIT APPEAL No.658 of 2010


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



      The present writ appeal is arising out of order dated

09.12.2009 passed in W.P.No.1176 of 2005.

      The facts of the case reveal that the respondent -

employee was serving as a Cleaner in the services of Andhra

Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation (APSRTC) and at the

relevant point of time, he has put in about 22 years of service.

He was charge sheeted on 13.08.1998 on the ground that he

was absent from 05.08.1998 to 11.08.1998. Meaning thereby,

only for five days. Pursuant to issuance of charge sheet, he did

file his reply and the disciplinary authority, not being satisfied

with the reply of the employee, appointed an enquiry officer and

the enquiry officer has held the charges proved and the

disciplinary authority has finally inflicted punishment of

removal from service. The respondent - employee has

approached the Labour Court by filing I.D.No.8 of 1999 under

Section 2-A(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and the

Labour Court has passed award on 04.01.2002 directing his

reinstatement without back wages. Aggrieved by the said

award, the employee preferred a writ petition before this Court

i.e., W.P.No.1176 of 2005 and the learned Single Judge has

directed reinstatement of the employee upholding the award

passed by the Labour Court and directed payment of 50% of the

back wages.

The facts of the case reveal that the employee in question

was absent only for five days. He was not gainfully employed

elsewhere, as informed before this Court and for the aforesaid

misconduct capital punishment of removal was awarded to the

employee. The learned Single Judge has taken into account the

judgments delivered in the case of Syed Zaheer Hussain vs.

Union of India1 and J.K. Synthetics Limited vs. K.P.

Agrawal2 and has granted 50% back wages. In the case of Syed

Zaheer Hussain (supra) decided by the Hon'ble Supreme Court,

there was absence of six days, whereas, in the present case

there was absence of only five days and in those circumstances,

the learned Single Judge was certainly justified in granting 50%

of the back wages. It has also been informed to this Court that

even though there was no interim order granted by the Division

Bench in the present writ appeal, the employer has already paid

1999 LAB. I.C. 2616

(2007) 2 SCC 433

the back wages and the employee is no longer in service. This

Court, taking into account the aforesaid, is of the opinion that

the learned Single Judge was justified in granting 50% of the

back wages. No case for interference is made out in the matter.

Accordingly, the writ appeal is dismissed.

Miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand

closed. There shall be no order as to costs.

________________________ SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA, CJ

_______________________ ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI, J 07.03.2022 ES