IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N WRIT PETITION NO: 31551 OF 7017 :: AMARAVATI Between: Y.Appa Rao, S/o. Late Veeranna Aged about 62 years, E-70625 T Conductor, APSRTC D.No.1-55-1/4, Road No.1, F.C.I. Colony, Asserwada Bhavan, Tadepalligudem, West Godawari Rtd. Dist. ...PETITIONER AND 1. Regional Manager, APSRTC, East Godawari East Godawari District 2. Depot Manager, APSRTC, Rajahmundry Depot, Rajahmundry, East Godawari District 3. The Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal Visakhapatnam. Region, Rajahmundry, cum Labour Court, ...RESPONDENTS Constitution of India praying that in in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court Petition under Article 226 of the the circumstances stated i be pleased to issue may or Direction more particularly setting aside that part of the award an appropriate Writ, Order in the nature of writ of certiorari one passed by the Labour Court petitioner from date of so far as not granting back wages to the removal to the date of superannuation in published vide G.O.Rt.No.1664, Labour (LAB.I) Department dated 16.11. petitioner is entitled to be paid of superannuation with all I D.No.30/2007 dated 14.10.2009 Employment Training & Factories and consequently declare that the from the date of removal to date benefits. 2009, wages consequential Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI M. V. RAMA RAO Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 & 2: SRI T. VINOD KUMAR(SC FOR APSRTC) Counsel for the Respondent No.3: GP FOR LABOUR The Court made the following: ORDER APHC010495412012 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3457] TUESDAY, THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSANDAND TWENTYFIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N WRIT PETITION NO: 31551/2012 Between: Y.appa Rao ...PETITIONER AND Regional Manager Apsrtc and Others Counsel for the Petitioner: ...RESPONDENT{S) 1.MV RAMA RAO Counsel for the Respondent{S): 1.GP FOR HOME (AP) 2.K SATYANARAYAN MURTHY(SC FOR APSRTC) The Court made the following: 2 Order:- The petitioner is challenging the award passed in I.D. No. 30 of 2007 by the Labour Court, Visakhapatnam, to the extent of denial of back wages. The petitioner joined the respondent corporation in the year 1976 and was issued order of removal dated 27.11.2001 on the allegation that the petitioner had unauthorizedly absented himself from 01.06.2001 to 30.06.2001. It is submitted in the affidavit that the petitioner had submitted a sick certificate issued by a Government Doctor/APSRTC Dispensary, and that the not considered by the disciplinary authority and the order of removal was passed. The petitioner filed an appeal before the appellate authority, which was summarily rejected. Thereafter, the petitioner filed I.D.No.30 of 2007 before the Labour Court, Visakhapatnam. The Labour Court, Visakhapatnam, passed an award on 14.10.2009, holding that the disciplinary proceedings which resulted in the termination of the services of the petitioner were liable to be set aside. The Labour Court, Visakhapatnam, set aside the order of removal and directed reinstatement of the petitioner. However, denied the payment of back wages. 3. The learned Standing Counsel for the respondents submits that the petitioner has attained the age of superannuation prior to the passing of the award. The petitioner attained the age of superannuation on 31.08.2008. It is submitted that the petitioner was also paid the service benefits to which he was entitled for. It is further submitted that there is no explanation for the inordinate delay in approaching the Labour Court, Visakhapatnam, after a an 2. same was 3 period of six (06) years from the date of termination. The petitioner was terminated in the year 2001. However, he approached the Labour Court Visakhapatnam, in the year 2007 and cannot expect payment of back wages for the period during which he has exhibited laxity in approaching the appropriate forum challenging the orders of termination. The writ petition is hit by laches and delay; as such, the petitioner is not entitled for any relief. It is evident from the record that the petitioner was terminated from 4. service vide order dated 27.11.2001. The petitioner had approached the Labour Court, Visakhapatnam, in the year 2004. However, the said I.D. was renumbered as I.D.No.30 of 2007. The Labour Court, Visakhapatnam, has considered Ex.M3 dated 06.07.2001, whereby the sick certificate issued by the Government Medical Officer, Kovvur, was submitted. The Labour Court, Visakhapatnam, has considered Rule 11 (3) of the APSRTC Leave Rules which mandates that a medical certificate issued by a Private Medical Practitioner also be considered for the purpose of leave, and found fault with the respondents in ignoring the same. The Labour Court, Visakhapatnam, also gave a categorical finding on the proportionality of punishment when compared to the charges and, as such, rightly set aside the order of removal dated 27.11.2001. The subsequent orders of the appellate and review authorities, dated 16.12.2002 and 09.05.2003, were also set aside. The Labour Court, Visakhapatnam, has denied the back wages, however extended the continuity of service. 4 5. The learned Standing Counsel for the respondents submits that the petitioner ought to have submitted his sick certificate within However, he produced the sick certificate after absence. 48 hours. seven (07) days of his 6. Considering the submissions and after perusing the record, it is evident that the enquiry was an ex-parte enquiry, conducted by the respondents the ground that the petitioner did not respond to the letters advising him to attend the enquiry. Considering the submissions that the petitioner has attained the on sent to him 7. age of superannuation on 31.08.2008, before passing the award, the petitioner could not be reinstated into service. 8. Considering the same, this Court is inclined to direct the consider the petitioner as in service till the date of his respondents to superannuation i.e., on 31.08.2008. The respondents are further directed to pay 50% of the wages to the petitioner. The respondents shall compute the wages payable to the petitioner as directed by this Court, within a period of six (06) weeks from the date of receipt of this order. 9. Accordingly, this Writ Petition is allowed in part. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. That Rule Nisi has been made absolute the Chief Justice Sri Dhiraj Singh Thakur day of February, Two Thousand and Twenty as above. Witness the Hon’ble on this Tuesday, Eighteenth Five. I Sd/- M SRINIVAS ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// To, SECTION OFFICER 1. The Regional Manager, APSRTC, East Godavari Region, Rajahmundry, East Godavari District. S' 2. The Depot Manager, APSRTC, Rajahmundry Depot, Rajahmundry, East Godavari District. 3. The Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal cum Labour court, Visakhapatnam. 4. One CC to Sri M. V. Rama Rao, Advocate [OPUC] 5. One CC to Sri T. Vinod Kumar (SC FOR APSRTC) [OPUC] 6. One CC to Sri K. Satyanarayan Murthy(SC FOR APSRTC) [OPUC] 7. Two CCs to GP for Labour, High Court of Andhra Pradesh. [OUT] 8. Three CD Copies. ssb i. HIGH COURT DATED:18/02/2025 ORDER WP.No.31551 of 2012 PARTLY ALLOWING THE W.P. WITHOUT COSTS