The High Court · 2025

Counsel for the Appellants: Ms. D. SAI MAHITHA REP., FOR SRl. R ANURAG (sc FoR rsRTc) Counsel for the Respondent No.1: SRI P GOVINDA RAJULU Counsel for the Respondent No.2: GP FOR LABOUR The Court made the following: JUDGMENT HON'BLE SIU JUSTICE ABHINAND KUMAR SI-IA' ILI AND IION'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SARATH W.A.No.44 of 2025 IUDGMENT: I' t l t,,t. l.\nlt,r', lt,,l.rtr KntrLt.\trtt...t Aggnevrd by the order dated 05.09.2024 pasred rn V.P.No.9509 cI 2014 by the leamed Single Judg:, the present writ appeal has been filed.

2. Heard NLs.D.Sai Malltha, learned counsel repres )nting Sri RAnurag, leamed Standing Counsel appearing ior the appellants, Sri t'.Govindarajulu leamed counsel appearirg lor the 1." resporL,lent and leamed Govemment Plead< r for Labour appearing for the 2"J respondent.

3. It is the c:ase of the appellants that the 1" respondent 'was working ,rs Assistant Depot Clerk \X4rile he was discharging his duties, he issued un-connected ticket bk,ck to the concemed conductor which resulted inconvenicnce to the conductor :md also led to misappropriation o1 th,: bus tickets -a*rcl amounrs. The disciplinaw aurhoriry has construed the same as misconduct and after conducting a detailed enquiry and for the proven misconduct, the dsciplinarv authonty has imposed the punishment of removal agalnst the 1" respondent uide proceedings dated

26.06.2010. Aggrieved by the said removal, the 1" respondent has unsuccessfully preferred an appeal and later, challengrng the order of removal, he approached the Labour Coun by fiirng I.D.No.81 of 2011 under Section 2:A (2) of the Industr"ial Dsputes Acr, t947 (for short the Act). The Labour Caun ilde Award dated26.09.2013 panlyallowed the said ID and directed the appellants to reinstate the 1" respondent into service wrth continuity of service, but, u.'ithout back wages, attendant benefits and nodonal rncrements. 4 Aggneved bythe said Award dated26.09.2013 passed by the Labour Court to the exrent of denying back wages and attendant benefits, rhe 1" respondent has approached this Coun b'v filing 'W.P.No.9509 of Z)t+. Vithout appreciatrrg any of the contentions raised by the appr:llants, leamed Singl: judge allo*ed the wnt petition t'i,ir order dated 05.09.2)23 and directed the appellanm to gritnt all amendant ben,:fits including full back wages ro the 1" respondent. Fr:nce, the writ appeal.

5. Leamed Standing Corursel appearing for the app,:llants had contenderl that the ,lisciplinary authcriry s.,as y,;stiiied in passing the removal order as admittedly the charqe lt veiled against the 1' respondent was held to be proved arLd the leamed Single Judge ought not ro have granted attt'ndant benefits with ltrll backwages. Therefore, appropriate rrders be passed rn the writ appeal by sening aside the order passed by the leamed Single Judge. 6 Leamed r:oursel appearing for the l" responderrt had contended tkLt the Labour C-oun has rightlv came io the conclusion that the charge levelled asainst the 1'' respcndent --t could not be held to be proved by the Enquiry Officer and there was no ioss to the appellanr Crrporation as the 1,, respondent and one Raj Kumar have deposited the amounts to the C-orporation bv selling rhe ticket blocks and the Labour Coun has nghdy exercised its power under Secdon 11-A of the Act, and paniy allowed the ID, however, denied the attendant benefits and backw.ages. kamed counsel had further conrended that rhe learned Single Judge has nghtly allowed the writ petition bv directing the appellants to grant attendant benefits rncluding fuii back wages. Therefore, rhere are no merirs in the yaat appeal and rhe sarne is liable to be dismissed.

7. Flavrng considered the nval submissions made bythe leamed counsel on either side, this Coun is of the view that the Labour Court has given a categorical finding to the effect that the pnncipie of 'no v"'ork no pai.,r pould apply to the facts of the case and not granted back wages and attendant .]'-".'-ls4.*''*_+,... 7 benefits. Thc,ugh no materiai was piaceci before the i,:ameci Single Judge, leamed Single Judge has granted all am:ndant benefits inciudrng full back wages to the 1" respcndent. Therefore, thr: order passed by the learrred Srngle JLLdge is modified to tt o exrenr of 5)o/o back wages.

8. Accordi:rgly, the Vrit App."l is drsposed of ard rhe order dated A5.09.2024 passed in \X/.P.No.9509 of 2( 1a by the leamed Sirrele Judge is modified ro rhe emenr oi srrnting 50"/o back wages only. No costs. Miscella:reou petitioru, '[ any, pendrns shall srand I u. ,'A#["+H / itotl orrtcrR SDI. B \ sEc $ ,TTRUE COPYI' To,

2. 2 4 rhe presiding crricer' Honbre :3:lJ;:illiHu:T ln" cc to sRr' - ^f"nt^:;rriu oo"""rt" toPucl Ln" cc to sP'r' P "-":::'if"*ourt ro, rn" State oi reransana' lYs"?,"i:&i3J3$ Two CD Co?ies *"'

5. KKS GJP HIGH COURT DATED:21 101,t2025 tt' .: o o t ,5/ 2 2 APii 2025 * t:)Fs EAT, ':'))/' JUDGMENT WA.No.44 of 1t-025 DISPOSING OF THE WRIT APPEAL WITHOUT COSTS 7 4.2 /, /*