IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE TWENTY NINETH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA WRIT PETITION NO: 2714 OF 2019 Between: Sk Ali Baba, S/o.Moulali, Aged about 51 years, Occ: Ex-Employee, R/o.Vivekananda Colony, Giddaluru, Prakasam District. ...PETITIONER AND The Labour Court, Guntur, Rep. by its Presiding Officer. The Zilla Parishad, Ongole, Rep. by its Chief Executive Officer The Commissioner, Panchayat Raj Department, Government of Andhra Pradesh, Vijayawada, Krishna District. The Collector and District Magistrate, Prakasam District, Ongole M.P.D.O Office, Giddaluru, Prakasam Dist. A.P. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. (Respondent No.5 impleaded as per Court Order dated 17-11-2022 vide I.A.No.3 in WP No. 2714 of 2019) ...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 issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ mandamus, declaring the Award, dt. 10.08.2018 in I.D.No.85/2010 on the file of the 1®‘ respondent Court, insofar as it relates to denial of back wages to the petitioner, is concerned, as arbitrary and violative of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India and provisions of I.D. Act, 1947 and consequently direct the respondents 2 to 4 to grant back wages with interest 12% p.a. and further direct the respondents 2 to 4 to regularize the services of the petitioner as Jeep Driver or in any other suitable post on completion of requisite service and direct arrears of pay on effecting regularization of services and grant costs of the proceedings. .: t . lA NO: 1 OF 2019 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 pleased to direct the respondents 2 to 4 to forthwith reinstate the petitioner, pending disposal of writ petition. be lA NO: 1 OF 2022 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 direct the respondents managements 2 to 4 and M.P.D.O, Giddaluru to pay salary arrears of Rs.9,74,760/- due upto June 2022 to him immediately, every month salary in the first week of every month in future. lA NO: 2 OF 2022 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 direct the respondents 2 to 4 to pay wages in the Time Scale of regular Attender from 01.11.2019 till date and continue to pay the same in the 1®‘ week of every month to me. Counsel for the Petitioner; SRI M. PITCHAIAH Counsel for the Respondent No.1 : GP FOR LABOUR Counsel for the Respondent Nos.2 & 5 ; SMT. B.V. APARNA LAKSHMI, SCFORZZP, MPP Counsel for the Respondent Nos.3 & 4 : GP FOR PANCHAYAT RAJ & RURAL DEVELOPMENT The Court made the following; ORDER 1 APHC010058732019 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3396] TUESDAY, THE TWENTY NINETH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA WRIT PETITION NO: 2714/2019 Between: ...PETITIONER Sk. All Baba AND ...RESPONDENT{S) The Labour Court and Others Counsel for the Petitioner: 1.M PITCHAIAH Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1.GP FOR LABOUR (AP) 2,B VAPARNA LAKSHMI 3.GP FOR PANCHAYAT RAJ RURAL DEV (AP) The Court made the following: ORDER: This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India with the following prayer: " to issue a Writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the Award, dt 10.08.2018 in I.D.No.85/2010 on the file of the ■/*' respondent Coud, in so far as it relates to denial of back wages to the petitioner, is concerned, as arbltraiy and violative of Articles 14 and 21 of the 2 Constitution of India and provisions of I.D. Act, 1947 and consequently direct the respondents 2 to 4 to grant back wages with interest 12% p.a. and further direct the respondents 2 to 4, to regularize the services of the petitioner as Jeep Driver or in any other suitable post on completion of requisite service and direct arrears of pay on effecting regularization of services and grant costs of the proceedings and pass such other order or orders ” Heard Sri M.Pitchaiah, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned 2. Government Pleader for Labour, appearing for the respondent, learned Government Pleader for Services-I, appearing for the respondents 3 and 4 and Smt. B.V.Aparna Lakshmi, learned Standing Counsel for the respondents 2 and 5. Learned Standing Counsel for respondents 2 and 5 would submit that the O.A.No.6573 of 2005 preferred by the petitioner was dismissed, since the case of the petitioner is not falling under G.O.Ms.No.212, Finance and Planning (FW.PC.III) Department, dated 22.04.1994, as the individual did not complete five years of service by the cut-off date i.e. 25.11.1993. The respondent No.5 terminated the services of the petitioner, as there is no requirement of Jeep Driver because the jeep is contemned. Learned Standing Counsel would further submit that it is the order of the Government that the Driver post will be abolished on retirement of the regular jeep driver. Now, no vehicle is being maintained by the office. Hence, the service of the petitioner required. Learned Standing Counsel would further submit that the W.P.No.35269 of 1998 filed by the petitioner seeking regularization was also dismissed on the ground that he has to approach the APAT, however, interim 3. IS no more 3 order was passed regarding payment of minimum time scale. The respondent authorities obliged and implemented the payment of minimum time scale to the individual. Learned counsel would further submit that the relief claimed in the present petition regarding regularization is beyond the scope of this writ petition. The petitioner, in the light of the order of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in C.A.No.3750 of 2006, dated 06.07.2009, did not fulfill the conditions prescribed in G.O.Ms.No.112, dated 22.04.1994. Learned Standing Counsel would further submit that in the light of the order in O.A.No.6573 of 2005, basing on the observation that it does not preclude the respondent authorities to continue the petitioner on daily wage basis, the petitioner was continued in the service. Learned Standing Counsel would further submit that coming to the claim of back-wages, there is a clear finding by the learned Judge to that effect. Unless it is perverse, this Court cannot interfere in the actual findings of the learned Presiding Officer of the Industrial Tribunal. There is no pleading or evidence to the effect that the petitioner remained idle and not engaged in any employment after his termination. Further, there is a finding of the learned Presiding Officer that the termination of the petitioner is without his fault and it is in violation of Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The Tribunal ordered reinstatement of the petitioner. So, the claim of the petitioner regarding back-wages cannot be considered. Learned Standing Counsel would further submit that coming to the claim of the petitioner regarding restoration of minimum time scale is concerned, only in pursuance of the 4 orders in W.P.M.P.No.340 of 2003 in W.P.No. 35269 of 1998, dated 10.01.2003 directing the respondents to pay minimum time scale, the petitioner was sanctioned minimum time scale vide Rc.No. A4/1073/99, dated 26.02.1999. Learned Standing Counsel would further submit that the Tribunal dismissed the O.A. on 18.09.2009. Hence, the claim of the petitioner regarding the minimum time scale cannot be granted, since he is a daily wager and his services are no more required, because the jeep is not in existence. The Government permitted the respondent office to engage the services of a hired vehicle. Learned Standing Counsel finally submits that the petition is devoid of merits and prays for dismissal of the petition. Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Services-I would submit that 4. they are adopting the arguments of the learned Standing Counsel for respondent Nos.2 and 5. Considering the submissions made and a fair look at the material placed on record, regarding the back-wages, it is relevant to extract the description and findings arrived by the learned Presiding Officer of the Labour Court at Para No.24 of the award passed in I.D.No.85 of 2010, which reads as 5. under: “Coming back to back wages, even if the court finds it necessary to award back wages, the guestion will be whether back wages should be awarded fully or only partially (and so the percentage). That depends upon the facts and circumstances of each case. Any income received by the employee during the relevant period on account of alternative employment or business is a relevant factor to be taken note of while awarding back wages, in addition to the 5 several factors mentioned in RUDHAM SINGH (2005) 5 SCO 591 and UDAY NARAIN PANDEY (2006) 1 SCO 479. Therefore, it is necessary for the employee to plead that he was not gainfully employed from the date of his termination. While an employee can not be asked to prove the negative, he has to atleast assert on oath that he was neither employed nor engaged in any gainful business or venture and that he did not have any income. Then the burden will shift to the employer. But, there is, however, no obligation on the terminated employee to search for or secure alternative employment. Be that as it may". During the course of arguments, learned counsel for the petitioner relied Judgment of Three Judge Bench of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Shambhu Nath Goya/ v. Bank of Baroda and others^ and would submit that in the light of the ratio held in the Judgment referred supra, the burden is on the employer to show that the petitioner is not gainfully employed during the period of termination till the date of reinstatement. Learned Presiding Officer of the 6. on a Labour Court also placed reliance on the Judgments of Hon’ble Supreme Court. After scrutiny of the material on record, the actual findings arrived by the Industrial Tribunal and in the backdrop of the legal position referred supra this Court is of the view that after both parties adduced evidence before the Labour Court, the burden of proof looses all its importance and it is for the Labour Court to scrutinize the material placed on record i.e. the pleadings as well as the findings on the point of the back-wages. Of course, it is true that the employer did not put his little finger to show that the petitioner is gainfully employed during the relevant time. But, at the same time, there is no pleading or evidence on the part of the employee also to make the Court to take ^ (1983) 4 Supreme Court Cases 491 6 Needless to say that appropriate decision regarding the back-wages, awarding back-wages is not automatic. Depending on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Court may grant total back-wages or any percentage of back-wages. In the present case Judge opined that the petitioner is not entitled for back-wages being a Driver having Motor Vehicle Licence since from his inception into service. In that this Court does not find any force in the contention that the petitioner is it is clear that the learned view entitled for back-wages. Coming to the point of the regularization of services is concerned, as rightly put by the learned Standing Counsel, the regularization of services is the subject matter before the Labour Court in I.D.No.85 of 2010 and the impugned order in the present writ petition is the award passed in I.D.No.85 of dated 10.08.2018. Regarding the back-wages, this Court is of the view that it is beyond the scope of the present writ petition. However, this Court is 7. not 2010, not giving any finding regarding the aspect of regularization of the petitioner. The petitioner is at liberty to work out his remedies in the light of the legal rules and law regarding the regularization at position and governing time before the appropriate forum. It is left open to him to raise appropriate such contention. last but not least, the point regarding entitlement of Coming to the minimum time scale is concerned, the award would show that he has to be 8. 7 % reinstated as daily wager. The appointment order of the petitioner also would show that he was engaged by the respondent No.5 through selection process, but as a daily wager. But it does not mean that he is not entitled for minimum time scale. The award is vivid on the point that the respondents are directed to reinstate the petitioner. Reinstatement means, putting the petitioner in the place wherever he was as on the date of termination. Be that as it may, even as per the orders of the Tribual, the petitioner is entitled for minimum time scale. The contention of respondent No.5 that the jeep is dismantled and the services of the petitioner is not required, cannot be countenanced. Since no writ petition is preferred by the respondent authorities against the award passed by the Labour Court, it has become final against them. In that view, it is apposite to consider the case of the petitioner 9. regarding the minimum time scale. In the result, the Writ Petition is partly allowed regarding the minimum 10. time scale reiterating that the petitioner is entitled for minimum time scale and the remaining claim is dismissed. The respondent authorities are directed to clear the arrears of amount with respect to minimum time scale, if any, due to the petitioner, within a period of two (02) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. Sd/- P. VINOD KUA/IAR ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTI OFFICER To 1. The Presiding Officer, Labour Court. Guntur. 2. The Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad, Ongole. P3"=hayat Raj Department, Government Pradesh, Vijayawada, Krishna District. 4. The Collector and District Magistrate, Prakasam 5. M.P.D.O Office, Giddaluru, Prakasam Dist. A.P. 6. One CC to Sri M. Pitchaiah, Advocate [OPUC] 7. TwoCCsto GPforLabour, High Court of Andhra Pradesh. [OUT] Panchayat Raj & Rural Development, High Andhra Pradesh. [OUT] 9. One CC to Smt. B.V. Aparna Lakshmi, SC for ZZP & MPP(OPUC) 10.Three C.D. Copies. of Andhra District, Ongole. Court of Cnr HIGH COURT DATED:29/04/2025 ORDER WP.No.2714 of 2019 ALLOWING THE W.P. WITHOUT COSTS