Mir Abid Ali v. Godavarikhani

Counsel for the Appellant: SMT.P.RAJANI REDDY Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR LABOUR WRIT PETITION NO : 7671 of 2000 Between: Mir Abid Ali, S/o.Mir Mohasin Ali, E.No.300782 R/o.Utnoor, Adilabad District. AND 1 The Labour Court, rep.by its Presiding Officer. Godavarikhani. ..... PETITIONER Karimnagar District. 2 The Depot Manager, A.P.S.R.T.C., Asifabad, Adilabad District. .....RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to call for the records from the 1st Respondent and issue an appropriate Writ, order or Direction, particularly one in the nature of Writ of Certiorari and quash the Award passed by the 1st Respondent in I.D.No.4 of 1995, dated 2-7-1997, published on 20-8- 1997, in so far as denying 50% of the backwages as illegal, unjust, contrary to law and perverse and grant all consequential benefits; and pass such other order or orders as it may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI A.K.JAYAPRAKASH RAO Counsel for the Respondents : GP FOR LABOUR The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE SMT JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI & THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR WRIT APPEAL NO :1101of 2008 & WRIT PETITION NO.7671 OF 2000 COMMON JUDGMENT: (per Hon’ble Sri. Justice Vilas V. Afzulpurkar) Since the issue involved in the writ appeal and the writ petition and the parties are one and the same, both these matters are being disposed by way of this Common Judgment. The writ appeal is preferred challenging the order, dated

28.3.2008 passed in W.P.No.13212 of 1999 by the learned single Judge upholding the award of the Labour Court in I.D.No.4 of 1995, dated 2.7.1997. The writ petition is filed by the writ petitioner challenging the award of the Labour Court in I.D.No.4 of 1995, to the extent of denying 50% of the back wages. The writ petitioner is the 1st respondent in the writ appeal and is the applicant before the Labour Court. For the sake of convenience, the status of the parties will hereinafter be referred to as arrayed before the Labour Court. The facts in brief are: The applicant -Abid Ali, while working as a Driver in APSRTC Bus Depot, Asifabad, was issued a charge memo dated 17.1.1994, which contains two charges viz., “Charge No.1: For having absented unauthorisedly for duty from 7.12.1993 to till date without any intimation or prior sanction of leave, thereby causing inconvenience to the traveling public and effecting and crew productivity of the unit; Charge No.2: For having unauthorisedly absented to duty for 19 days besides availing leave for 28 days during the last six months i.e., from June to December, 1993 resulting dislocation of services besides inconvenience to the traveling public.” The enquiry was conducted exparte and the applicant was removed from service. Questioning the same, the applicant approached the Labour Court under the aforesaid I.D., and the Labour Court having observed that the management failed to produce any evidence in support of either of the charges and as such, both the charges having not been proved against the applicant, set aside the order of the management and directed the management to reinstate the workman into service with continuity of service and half of the backwages. Aggrieved by the same, the management filed the writ petition No.13212 of 1999 challenging the reinstatement of the workman, whereas the workman filed WP No.7671 of 2000 challenging the award of the Labour Court insofar as denial of 50% of the backwages, contending that the Labour Court having found that both the charges are not proved, cannot deny 50% of the backwages and that he is entitled to the entire backwages. The writ petition filed by the management was dismissed Having aggrieved by the same, the present writ appeal has been preferred by the management. Heard the learned Counsel and perused the material available on record. A perusal of the material on record goes to show that the workman had questioned the order of the Labour Court in I.D.No.4 of 1995 insofar as denial of 50% of the backwages on the ground that the charges themselves were found to be very trivial and the management failed to prove those charges and hence, both the charges were not proved and the Labour Court was justified in ordering reinstatement while coming to the conclusion that the punishment of dismissal from service itself was found to be highly disproportionate, but not justified in denying the half of the backwages. On a perusal of the material on record, the Labour Court having observed that the charges have not been proved, granted relief of reinstatement with continuity of service, but denied 50% of the backwages. The learned single Judge also upheld the order of the Labour Court. In view of the fact that both the charges have not been found proved, in our opinion, denial of 50% back wages, is not justified. It is evident from record that in paras 7 & 8 of applicant’s affidavit in writ petition, that his specific averment that he remained unemployed from 15.5.1994 (date of removal) to 4.12.1997 (date of reinstatement) remained uncontroverted. For no fault of applicant, denial of 50% wages was thus, unjustified. In this view of the matter, We feel it a fit case to modify the order of the Labour Court insofar as grant of 50% backwages is concerned, to that of grant of full backwages. Subject to the above modification, the writ appeal is dismissed and the writ petition is allowed. No order as to costs. _______________________ Justice T.Meena Kumari ___________________________ Justice Vilas V. Afzulpurkar Dated: 7th April, 2009 Gurc/nn THE HON'BLE SMT JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI & THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR WRIT APPEAL NO : 1101 of 2008 & WRIT PETITION NO.7671 OF 2000 (Common Judgment delivered by the Hon’ble Sri Justice Vilas V. Afzulpurkar) 7th April, 2009