APHC010706892012 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3457] WEDNESDAY, THE NINETEENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N WRIT PETITION NO: 34432/2012 Between: The Depot Manager, Apsrtc, ...PETITIONER AND P Mohan Rao ...RESPONDENT Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. ARAVALA RAMA RAO(SC FOR APSRTC KKAC) Counsel for the Respondent: 1. M V PRATAP REDDY The Court made the following Order: The petitioner is challenging the award passed in I.D.No.32 of 2011, whereby the Labour Court, Anantapur directed the petitioner to treat the respondent as in service from the date of his removal till the date of attaining the age of superannuation, and to extend all retirement benefits to the petitioner therein. 2. The petitioner therein was denied back wages and attendant benefits on the principle of “no work no pay”. This Court, vide order dated 06.11.2012, granted interim suspension of the award, subject to the condition that the petitioner deposit before the Labour Court 2 50% of the retirement benefits due and payable to the respondent in accordance with the award, within six weeks. 3. The learned Standing counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondent was charged by unauthorized absence, which constitutes a major misconduct, and as such, an enquiry was conducted against the respondent. The disciplinary authority imposed the punishment of removal from service vide proceedings dated 20.12.2005. The appellate authority also dismissed the appeal preferred by the respondent on 19.06.2006. The revisional authority declined to interfere and dismissed the revision vide proceedings dated 31.08.2006. 4. It is submitted by the learned Standing counsel that the authorities have rightly considered the unauthorized absence as a major misconduct and imposed punishment which the respondent deserved. However, the Labour Court, while considering the matter in totality, recorded a categorical finding that the respondent was unwell and had taken treatment from a doctor, and submitted medical certificates to the concerned authorities seeking medical leave, which was not considered by the petitioner. Consequently, the punishment of removal from service was imposed on the respondent. 3 5. The Labour Court found such action not only illegal but also disproportionate to the charges framed. The Labour Court also recorded that the respondent attained the age of superannuation on 01.06.2009. The Labour Court has rightly considered the disproportionate nature of the punishment imposed by the petitioner and accordingly directed that the respondent be treated as in service from the date of his removal till the date of superannuation, with all retirement benefits to be extended to him. 6. The Labour Court, however, denied grant of back wages and attendant benefits on the principle of “no work no pay”. 7. Considering the detailed manner in which the award has been passed, this Court finds no infirmity or illegality in the award. The award is well considered and well reasoned. 8. On these grounds, the writ petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. ____________________ JUSTICE HARINATH.N Date: 19.02.2025 NKA 4 30 HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N WRIT PETITION No.34432 of 2012 Date: 19.02.2025 NKA