APHC010651382012 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3457] TUESDAY ,THE TWENTY FIFTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N WRIT PETITION NO: 30659/2012 Between: The Depot Manager, Apsrtc, East Godavari District ...PETITIONER AND Pres Offr Honble Ind Tribunal Court Visakhapatnam Anr and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. VINOD KUMAR TARLADA (SC FOR APSRTC) Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR LABOUR The Court made the following: ORDER: The petitioner is challenging the award passed by the Labour Court in I.D.No.77 of 2009 whereby the petitioner was directed to reinstate the workman/2nd respondent into service denying back wages but with continuity of services for the purpose of leave and increments. The Labour Court also directed the petitioner to defer the annual increment of workman/ 2nd respondent for a period of two (02) years with a cumulative effect, as punishment. 2 2. The 2nd respondent, while working as a driver was charged for his unauthorized absence which resulted in cancellation of several services and loss of revenue for the petitioner-corporation. On the said charges, an enquiry was conducted and the disciplinary authority being not satisfied with the explanation submitted by the 2nd respondent, issued a show cause notice for which no explanation was submitted by the 2nd respondent. Thereafter, the petitioner-corporation has issued the proceedings dated 13.08.2007 terminating respondent No.2 from service. Aggrieved by the same, the 2nd respondent filed I.D.No.77 of 2009 on the file of the Industrial Tribunal- cum-Labour Court, Visakhapatnam, and the Labour Court, without considering the seriousness of the mistake committed by the 2nd respondent, has directed reinstatement of the 2nd respondent into services together with continuity of services. However, denied back wages and further imposed the punishment of deferment of annual increment of him for a period of 2 years with a cumulative effect. 3. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that respondent No.2 was reinstated as directed by the Labour Court and he has also attained the age of superannuation. 4. Recording the submission of the petitioner that the 2nd respondent has substantially complied the direction of the Labour Court in reinstating the 2nd respondent, the only issue deserves consideration of this Court is whether the Labour Court was justified in extending the continuity of the services for the purpose of leave and increment. Further, considering the submission that 3 the 2nd respondent has attained the age of superannuation, this Court finds no grounds to interfere with the well considered award and the award has been implemented in total. As such, no further orders are required to be passed in this writ petition. 5. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is closed. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed. ____________________ JUSTICE HARINATH.N Date: 25th February, 2025 RKS