APHC010137002005 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE THIRTY FIRST DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI WRIT PETITION NO: 24832 OF 2005 Between: S.Sadha Siva Rao, S/o. Raghavaiah, Occ: Driver, E.No.352553 50 Years, C/o. R.T.C. Security Guard, Ponnur Depot, Guntur District. Aged about ...Petitioner AND 1. The Hon’ble Labour Court Guntur, Rep.by its Presiding Officer. 2. The Depot Manager APSRTC Chilakaluripet Bus Depot, Guntur District. ...Respondents 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 writ order or direction more particular one in the nature of Writ of Certiorari and after calling for the records in I.D.No.219/1999 dated 1.12.2004 on the fife of the Hon’ble 1®* respondent in so far as denying continuity of service from the date of removal to filing the petition. back wages and attendant benefits to the petitioner is illegal, arbitrary and unjust and consequently quash the I.D.No.219/1999 dated 1.12.2004 continuity of service from the date of removal to till the date of filing the petition back wages and attendant benefits to the petitioner. by granting lA NO: 1 OF 2005(WPMP 31916 OF 2005 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, the High Court may be pleased to fix an early date for hearing of this case. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI Y. SUBBA RAO Counsel for the Respondent No.1 : GP FOR LABOUR Counsel for the Respondent No.2 : SRI SANISETTY VENKATESWARLU, SC FOR APSRTC The Court made the following order: APHC010137002005 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3332] THURSDAY, THE THIRTY FIRST DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI WRIT PETITION NO: 24832/2005 Between: 1.S.SADHA SIVA RAO, PONNUR DEPOT, GUNTUR DISTRICT, VISAKHAPATNAM ...PETITIONER AND ANOTHER, REP.BY ITS 1.THE HONBLE LABOUR COURT GUNTUR PRESIDING OFFICER 2.THE DEPOT MANAGER APSRTC CHiLAKALURlPET BUS DEPOT, GUNTUR 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 writ order or direction more particular one in the nature of Writ of Certiorari and after calling for the records in I.D.No.219/1999 dated 1.12.2004 on the file of the Hon'ble 1st respondent in so far as denying continuity of service from the date of removal to filing the petition, back wages and attendant benefits to the petitioner is illegal, arbitrary and unjust and consequently quash the I.D.No.219/1999 dated 1.12.2004 by granting continuity of service from the date of removal to till the date of filing the petition back wages and attendant benefits to the petitioner and pass such other order or orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. IA NO: 1 OF 2005(WPMP 31916 OF 2005 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 to fix an early date for hearing of this case, and pass such other order or orders as this Hon'ble Court may deems fit and proper under the circumstances of the case. iA NO: 1 OF 2012(WPMP 10219 OF 2012 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 to fix an early date for hearing of this case, and pass Counsel for the Petitioner: 1.YSUBBA RAO Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1.GP FOR LABOUR 2.SANISETTY VENKATESWARLU SC For APSRTC 3. . The Court made the following order: Questioning the award of the 1®' respondent in I.D.No.219/1999 dated 01.12.2004, the present writ petition is filed. Heard Sri Y.Subba Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned 2. Assistant Government Pleader for Labour and Sri Sanisetty Venkateswarulu learned Standing Counsel for APSRTC. Learned counsel for the petitioner in elaboration to what has been 3. stated in the affidavit would contend that, on 02.01.1992, when the petitioner (who is driver) was towing vehicle bearing no: AAZ 4281 with his bus AAZ 4930 to Vijayawada, two persons coming opposite on a motor cycle, crossed his bus and fell on the road side, against which a case has been registered w 4b He further submitted' that, and charge sheet was issued on 11.02.1992. considering the explanation submitted by the petitioner dated 07.05.1992, the respondent have conducted an enquiry, without following the of natural justice and made him guilty of charges and issued show without principles cause notice of removal on 06.06.1992 and finally removed him from service Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner vide proceedings dated 20.06.1992. preferred an appeal which was rejected on 27.02.1993 without assigning any reasons and later the review petition filed before the Regional Manager was also rejected on 22.09.1994. As such, the petitioner has raised an Industrial respondent vide I.D.No.219/1999 wherein an award Dispute before the 1 passed dated 01.12.2004 directing the respondent corporation to without backwages with continuity of was reinstate the petitioner into service service from the date of filing of petition i.e., 20.10.2019. respondent-labour court, Guntur has He further submitted that the 1 directed that the petitioner shall be reinstated into service from the date of the date of removal from the service and also filing of petition but not from denied the backwages, which is unjust. The Labour Court ought to have noticed that there is no negligence on the part of the petitioner as the persons riding motor cycle came opposite to the bus and fell on the road side and the acquitted in the criminal respondent failed to notice that the petitioner was filed against him with regard to said incident. 1 case having rightly observed that the Depot he is a member He further submitted that Manager, who passed the removal order, is not competent as of accident enquiry committee and further, the charges are not proved against the petitioner, the 1®' respondent ought to have granted complete relief of reinstatement with continuity of service, attendant benefits and back wages. As the 1®' respondent failed to give findings for denying the attendant benefits, back wages and continuity of service from the date of removal to till the date of filing the petition, the petitioner had filed the present writ petition questioning the said award. In support of his claim, the petitioner relied on the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Jayantibhai Raojibhai Patel Vs Municipal Council, Narkhed & Ors vide Civil Appeal No.6188 of 2019 and prayed to pass appropriate orders in that regard. Per contra, learned Standing counsel while justifying the award of the 1®' respondent submitted that considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the Labour Court has dealt the case in the right perspective and passed the impugned award and the petitioner cannot claim any backwages & continuity of service from the date of removal. Hence, the order impugned needs no interference and prayed to dismiss the writ petition. 4. 5. Perused the record and considered the submissions of both the learned counsel. 6. A criminal case was filed against the petitioner under Section 304-A of IPC for causing an accident while towing a bus along with his bus wherein he was acquitted after full trial. The petitioner was removed from service after departmental enquiry. The main grounds urged by the petitioner are that the Depot Manager, who issued the removal order, is not competent as hfe is a member of accident enquiry committee and having set aside the said removal order, instead of reinstating the services of petitioner with backwages with continuity of services from the date of removal of service, the Labour Court has reinstated without backwages with continuity of service from the date of filing of petition. A perusal of the record would show that as many as 12 documents have been marked on the respondents side and one document vide Ex.WI was marked for the petitioner i.e., certified copy of Calender Judgement on the file of VI Addl. Munisif Magistrate, Guntur wherein the petitioner was acquitted. As could be culled out from the record, the Labour court has given a categorical finding that there is no evidence to find the petitioner guilty of the charges and when the petitioner was towing a bus along with his bus, he cannot drive the bus with considerable speed as such the charges against the petitioner are not proved. While holding so, the Labour Court has set-aside the removal order and directed the respondents to reinstate the petitioner with continuity of service from the date of filing of the petition and with further finding that the petitioner is not entitled for backwages and monetary benefits. 7. In Chariman-cum-MD Vs Ananta Saha\ the Hon’ble Apex Court at 8. Para No.49 held as follows: The issue of entitlement of back wages has been considered by this Court time and again and consistently held that even after punishment imposed upon the employee is quashed by t-he court or Labour Court, the ■49. ^ (2011) 5 see 142 payment of back wages still remains discretionary. Power to grant back wages is to be exercised by the court/tribunal keeping in view the facts in their entirety as no straitjacket formula can be evolved, nor a rule of universal application can be laid for such cases. Even if the delinquent is re-instated, it would not automatically make him entitled for back wages as entitlement to get back wages is independent of re-instatement. The factual scenario and the principles of justice, equity and good conscience have to be kept in view by an appropriate authority/court or tribunal. In such matters, the approach of the court or the tribunal should not be rigid or mechanical but flexible and realistic. From the conspectus of legal principles, the necessary criteria regarding benefit of back wages in the event of reinstatement of an employee is such that the length of service put up by the employee, his conduct and that he has no income during the termination of service i.e., from the date of termination till the date of his reinstatement etc. Further the principle of ‘No work-No pay’ is applicable where an employee is terminated and then reinstated, the period between termination and reinstatement is often viewed as a period where no work was performed wherein backwages will be denied. In the present case, the petitioner was not performing his duties from 20.06.1992 i.e., from the date of removal of service and it is not his case that he was gainfully employed from the date of his termination, circumstances, this Court, is not inclined to interfere with the aspect of backwages to the petitioner. In so far as continuity of service, as there is no evidence that the petitioner is guilty of the charges, he would be entitled for reinstatement from the date of removal. In the considered opinion of the Court, the impugned order requires modification with regard to continuity of service. 9. the In the said Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed-in-part modifying the order of the 1®* respondent-Labour Court, Guntur to the effect that the petitioner reinstated with continuity of services from the date of removal of service i.e., from 20.06.1992, without any backwages. There shall be no orders‘as to costs. IS Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. That Rule Nisi has been made absoiute as above witness the Hon’ble Sri Justice on this Thursday, The Thirty First day of July, Two Thousand and Twenty Five. ^ Sd/- N. MAQAIVSP.1A ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To 1. The Pregiding Officer, Hon’ble Labour Court Guntur. 2. The Depot Manager APSRTC Chilakaluripet District. 3. One CC to Sri Y. Subba Rao, Advocate [OPUC] 4. Two CCs to GP for Labour, High Court of Andhra Pradesh [OUT] 5. One CC to Sri Sanisetty Venkateswarlu, SC for APSRTC [OPUC] 6. Two CD Copies Bus Depot, Guntur Cnr HIGH COURT DATED:31/07/2025 ORDER WP NO. 24832 OF 2005 ^ 15SEP20?5 1 Current tieciion ^y/ X PARTLY ALLOWING THE W.P. WITHOUT COSTS