APHC010530972013 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3457] MONDAY,THE TWENTIETH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N WRIT PETITION NO: 24628/2013 Between: 1. THE DEPOT MANAGER, APSRTC, GUDIVADA DEPOT,, GUDIVADA, KRISHNA DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE HONBLE LABOUR COURT REP BY ITS PRESIDING OFFICER, GUNTUR, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 2. V RAMA MOHANA RAO, S/O VEERAIAH, AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS, EX-CONDUCTOR, REP BY DEPOT SECRETARY, APSRTC EMPLOYEES UNION, GANNAVARAM DEPOT GANNAVARAM, KRISHNA DISTRICT. ...RESPONDENT(S): Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue an appropriate writ order or direction more particularly one in the form of Writ of Certiorari (a) call for the records pertaining to and related to award passed by the Hon'ble Labour Court, Guntur in I.D. No. 144 of 2006 dated 31.05.2012 and quash or set aside the same by declaring the same as arbitrary, illegal and contrary to the law laid down by the corporation has followed the prescribed procedure as per the regulations; and (b) consequently declare that the 2nd respondent is not entitled for any back wages and continuity of service as the 2nd respondent has committed misconduct and pass 2 IA NO: 1 OF 2013(WPMP 30328 OF 2013 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased suspend the award passed by the Hon'ble Labour Court in I.D. No. 144 of 2006 dated 31.5.2012 and pass Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. K SATYANARAYAN MURTHY(SC FOR APSRTC) Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR LABOUR 2. P N MURTHY 3. ARAVALA RAMA RAO(SC FOR APSRTC KKAC) The Court made the following: 3 Order:- The petitioner is aggrieved by the award passed by the Labour Court, Guntur in I.D. No. 144 of 2006, whereby the Labour Court has modified the punishment of reduction of basic pay from Rs. 635/- to Rs. 545/- for a period of five (05) years with cumulative effect, and has held that the same is not justified, and modified it to reduction of pay from Rs. 635/- to Rs. 545/- for a period of two (02) years without cumulative effect. 2. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the 2nd respondent had retired from service in the year 1999 and, after lapse of several years, filed the I.D. The Labour Court also observed that there is laxity on the part of the 2nd respondent in challenging the punishment. However, the Labour Court erred in modifying the punishment without there being any ground for interference. 3. The learned counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent submits that efforts to contact the 2nd respondent did not yield any result. Be that as it may, the 2nd respondent was aged about 62 years when the writ petition was filed, and this Court also did not pass any interim order when the writ petition was admitted. As such, this Court finds no grounds to interfere with the award. 4. Accordingly, this writ petition stands dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. 4 As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. ____________________ JUSTICE HARINATH.N 20.04.2026 PNS