APHC010212932012 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3457] FRIDAY ,THE FOURTEENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N WRIT PETITION NO: 28156/2012 Between: Apsrtc,srikakulam Dist,d.m ...PETITIONER AND Gutivada Appala Raju Vsp Anot and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. VINOD KUMAR TARLADA (SC FOR APSRTC) Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR LABOUR 2. SRIDHAR TUMMALAPUDI The Court made the following Order: The petitioner/APSRTC is challenging the award in ID No.80 of 2011 dated 31.05.2012, whereby the 1st respondent was directed to be reinstated into service without back wages but with continuity of service for the purpose of leave and increments. The petitioner was further directed to defer the annual increment of the 1st respondent for a period of two years with cumulative effect. In pursuance of the award, the petitioner has reinstated the 1st respondent into service. 2. On 10.09.2012, this Court granted interim suspension of the main award, in so far as the relief regarding continuity of service is concerned. 3. Learned Standing Counsel for the petitioner/APSRTC submits that the 1st respondent is still in service as a driver. He further submits that the award was passed without considering the misconduct of the 1st respondent. 4. The unauthorised absence for 7 days was viewed seriously, although the 1st respondent had submitted medical certificates for the treatment he received for jaundice, and the 1st respondent’s claims were verified. The labour Court has rightly considered the circumstances in which the 1st respondent could not attend duties and has rightly set aside the order of termination. 5. Considering the submissions of both learned Standing Counsel for the petitioner/APSRTC and learned counsel for the 1st respondent, and after going through the records, this Court finds that the labour Court has passed a well-reasoned award, duly taking into consideration all the evidence placed before it. The labour Court also denied back wages to the 1st respondent. The 1st respondent has not challenged the award in so far as the imposition of withholding of increment for a period of 2 years with cumulative effect is concerned. 6. Considering the submissions, this Court finds no reason to interfere with the well-reasoned award of the labour Court. As the substantial part of the award has been complied with by the petitioner/APSRTC by reinstating the 1st respondent into service, this Court finds no grounds to interfere with the award. 7. Accordingly, the present Writ Petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. ___________________ JUSTICE HARINATH.N 14th February, 2025 cbn 49 HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N WRIT PETITION NO: 28156 of 2012 14th February, 2025 cbn