Y.V. Rao, v. The APSRTC rep. By its Managing Director,
WP/30045/2012 · 2025-02-19
Harinath N
body2025
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 46746 (AP) · dailylaw.ai ]
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 46746 (AP) · dailylaw.ai ]
Judgment text
Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH^ AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) APHC01O263932012 1 THURSDAY,THE TWENTIETH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N WRIT PETITION NO: 30045 OF 2012 Between: Y.V. Rao, E-457014, Conductor, APSRTC Simhachalam Depot, S/o Yellaiah 43 yrs, R/o Simhachalam, Visakhapatnam District ...PETITIONER AND
1. The APSRTC rep. by its Managing Director, Mushirabad, Hyderabad.
2. The APSRTC rep by its Regional Manager, Visakhapatnam.
3. The Depot Manager APSRTC, Simhachalam Depot, Visakhapatnam District 4.. The Chairman cum Presiding officer, Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Visakhapatnam, (R4 formal party) ...RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstancesstated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue an order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of CERTIORARI calling for the records relating to and in connection with the award of the 4**^ respondent in so far it went against to the petitioner in not granting the wages by treating the period of absence as dies non vide Award Dt. 17-2-2004, in I.D.No; 312003, which was published in the Gazette vide G.O.Rt No. 555, Dt 2-4-2004 as illegal, unjust and contraryto well established principles of law and as such the award is liable to be modified by granting all
the benefits and wages by treating the absent period of absence as on duty ■|or all.purposes in the interest of justice. .■I' > X- * Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI S. M. SUBHAN Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 to 3:SRI T. VINOD KUMAR, SC FOR APSRTC Counsel for the Respondent No.4:GP FOR LABOUR The Court made the following: ORDER
APHC010263932012 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3457] THURSDAY. THE TWENTIETH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N WRIT PETITION NO: 30045/2012 Between: ...PETITIONER Y.V. Rao, AND ...RESPONDENT(S) The Apsrtc Rep By Its Managing Director and Others Counsel for the Petitioner:
1.S M SUBHAN Counsel for the Respondent(S):
1.GP FOR LABOUR 2.K. SARALA REDDY(SC FOR APSRTC PNV) The Court made the following:
I/2II WP.No.30045of 2012 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH. N WRIT PETITION No.30045 of 2012
ORDER:
1. The petitioner is aggrieved by the award passed in ID.No.3 of 2003, dated 17.02.2004, whereby the Industrial Tribunal - Cum - Labour Court, Visakhapatnam set aside the order of removal of petitioner from service dated
31.03.2000. The appeal was rejected by the Divisional Manager.
2. The Labour Court directed reinstatement, however, denied grant of back wages as the petitioner was in the habit of going on leaves without authorization. The period during which the petitioner was not in service on account of his own default the Labour Court found it appropriate not to grant any back wages.
3. The learned standing counsel for respondent submits that after passing the
order directing reinstatement, the petitioner was reinstated into service and in so far as denial of back wages is concerned. The petitioner cannot as a matter of fundamental right claim wages for the period during which he was not on duty.
4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned standing counsel for the respondent. Perused the material on record.
II3II WP.No.3CI045of 2012 of the petitioner claiming to treat the period of cannot be considered.
5. The grievance absence as on duty for all purposes considering the submission that the petitioner is presently working with the respondent/corporation the period during which he was not in service would be considered for notional seniority which would enable the petitioner for grant of service benefits when the petitioner superannuates. It is made clear that the petitioner is not entitled for any back wages.
6. With these observations, the writ petition is disposed off. There shall be no order as to costs. However, Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stands closed Sd/- M.RAMESH BABU DEPUTY REGISTRAR //true copy// SECTION OFFICER To, The Managing Director, APSRT. Vijayawada APSRTC, Visakhapatnam. .Simhachalam Depot, Visakhapatnanr 1
2. The Regional Manager
3. The Depot Manager District APSRTC cc to Sri S M Subhan, Advocate jOPUCj ,SCforAPSRTC[OPUCl
4. One
5. One CC to Sri T. Vinod Kumar to GP for Labour, High Court of A. . at Amaravati[OUTl
6. Two CC’s
7. Three CD Copies. ssb
HIGH COURT DATED:20/02/2025
ORDER WP No.30045 of 2012 r 0C1 V" <’ w?- DISPOSING OF THE W.P. WITHOUT COSTS