The Telangana State Road ... vs Sri K.Gangadhara Goud K.G.Goud
2022 Latest Caselaw 1565 Tel

 THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA
                            AND
      THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI
                     WRIT APPEAL No.1088 OF 2017
JUDGMENT: (Per the Hon'ble the Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma)

        The present writ appeal is arising out of the order dated

06.04.2017          passed        by     the      learned       Single   Judge    in

W.P.No.11685 of 2017.

        The undisputed facts of the case reveal that the

respondent No.1, K. Gangadhara Goud, was working as a Driver

in the services of the Telangana State Road Transport

Corporation and a charge sheet was issued based upon an

incident which took place on 08.03.2013. There were two

charges levelled against him. The first was that he entered the

depot premises in intoxicated condition and took rest in the

crew rest room and the second was that he created nuisance

and had a quarrel with one G.S. Kumar, Conductor. A

departmental enquiry was held in the matter and after following

due process of law, an order was passed on 27.09.2013

terminating the respondent No.1/employee from service. The

respondent No.1/employee thereafter raised an Industrial

Dispute in I.D.No.7 of 2014 before the Labour Court-II,

Hyderabad. The Labour Court has scanned the entire evidence

and has held that the respondent No.1/employee was subjected

to breath analyser test and while he was subjected to breath

analyser test, he stated categorically that he did not consume

liquor but took some medicine which might be containing

alcohol. The Labour Court has arrived at a conclusion that

once it was stated by the respondent No.1/employee that he has

consumed some medicine, he should have been referred to some

medical examination to find out whether he was in the

intoxicated condition or not. In respect of the second charge,

the complainant, G.S. Kumar, did not support the management

version and after scanning the entire evidence, the Labour

Court has directed reinstatement of the respondent

No.1/employee with continuity of service, attendant benefits

and backwages. The writ petition was preferred against the

award passed by the Labour Court. The learned Single Judge,

keeping in view the judgment delivered by the Hon'ble Supreme

Court in the case of State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur vs.

Nemi Chand Nalwaya1, has declined to interfere with the award

passed by the Labour Court.

Learned counsel for the appellants has drawn the

attention of this Court towards the judgment delivered by the

Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Munna Lal vs. Union of

India2 and his contention is that in similar circumstances,

reinstatement of employee was directed subject to payment of

(2011) 4 SCC 584

(2010) 15 SCC 399

50% backwages and therefore, the backwages in the present

case be also confined to 50%.

In the matter of grant of backwages, there is no

straightjacket formula and merely because in one case 50%

backwages have been granted by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, it

does not mean that in the present case also, the backwages are

to be confined to the extent of 50%. The Labour Court has

appreciated the entire evidence on record and after holding that

the respondent No.1/employee was entitled for reinstatement

with backwages, has granted backwages and the learned Single

Judge has upheld the order passed by the Labour Court.

Therefore, this Court also does not find any reason to interfere

with the order passed by the learned Single Judge keeping in

view the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case.

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

28.03.2022 JSU