IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY,THE TWENTYFOURTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH. WRIT PETITION NO: 29288 OF 2012 ji ■f X. JU ■' .Ay p/ v-« Between: The Depot Manager, Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation Tiruvuru, Krishna District. ...PETITIONER AND 1. The Hon'ble Labour Court, Rep by its Presiding Officer, Guntur, Guntur District 2. Sri S. Madhusudhana Rao, S/o Srinivasa Rao, Aged about years, Ex- Conductor, E-360638, D No 73-4-14, Thotavuri Veedhi, Near Anjaneyulu General Stores, Patamata, Vijayawada , Krishna District. ...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 an appropriate writ order or direction more particularly in the form of Writ of Certiorari (a) call for the records pertaining to and related to award passed by the Hon'ble Labour Court, Guntur in I.D. No. 80 of 2008 dated 24.06.2011 and quash or set aside the same by declaring the same as arbitrary, illegal and contrary to law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India as the corporation has followed the prescribed procedure as per thq regulations; And (b) consequently declare that the 2"^ respondent is not entitled for any back wages aid continuity of service as he has committed misconduct. one I.A. NO: 5 OF 2012rWPMP. NO: 37391 OF 2012) 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 suspend the award passed by the Hon'ble Labour Court in I.D.No.80 of 2011 dt: 24-06-2011. NO: 3 OF 2012rWVMP. NO: 4051 OF 2012t Between: S. Madhusudhana Rao, S/o Srinivasa Rao, Aged about 50 Conductor, E-360638, D No 73-4-14, Thotavuri Veedhi, Near Anjaneyulu General Stores, Patamata, Vijayawada , Krishna District. years ...PETITIONER/RESPONDENT-2 AND 1. The Hon'ble Labour Court, Rep by its Presiding Officer, Guntur, Guntur District. ...RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT-1 2. The Depot Manager, Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation, Tiruvuru, Krishna District. ...RESPONDENT/PETITIONER 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 vacate the interim orders granted in W.P.M.P. No. 37391/2012 in W.P.No.29288/2012 dated 18.9.2012 on the file of this Hon'ble Court. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI VINOD KUMAR TARLADA (SC FOR APSRTC) Counsel for the Respondent No.1: GP FOR LABOUR Counsel for the Respondent No.2: SRI AJAY KUMAR KULKARNI The Court made the following: ORDER TV APHC010222482012 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3457] MONDAY, THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N WRIT PETITION NO: 29288/2012 Between: ...PETITIONER The Depot Manager AND ...RESPONDENT(S) The Honble Labour Court and Others Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. VINOD KUMAR TARLADA (SC FOR APSRTC) Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1.GP FOR LABOUR 2.AJAY KUMAR KULKARNI The Court made the following order: 1. The Depot Manager, A.P.S.R.T.C., Tiruvuru, Krishna Depot, the petitioner herein, is challenging the award, dated 24.06.2011, passed by the Labour Court, Guntur in I.D. No.80 of 2018. 2. The case of the petitioner is that the 2""' respondent herein, while working as a conductor, absented himself from 09.10.2006 till 13.10.2006 without any intimation. The concerned authority of the petitioner framed the charge of unauthorised absence against the 2 respondent to submit his nd nd respondent and called upon the 2 -2- W.P. No.29288 of 2012 ' V explanation. An enquiry was conducted, and a report was submitted holding that the charge of unauthorized absence against the 2 respondent was proved. The petitioner passed the proceedings dated 17.02.2007 imposing the punishment of removal from service. The appeal preferred by the 2"^^ respondent was rejected on 18.07.2007 and the revisional authority rejected the review on 03.01.2008. Thereafter nd the 2"^^ respondent filed I.D. No.80 of 2008 before the Labour Court challenging the order of termination. The Labour Court, after considering the evidence and the other material available on record, directed the petitioner to reinstate the 2'"'* respondent into service and, for continuity of service, 75% of back wages and attendant benefits. 3. The learned standing counsel for the petitioner submits that the Labour Court has not given any finding which would entitle the 2"'^ respondent for back wages and the finding that the 2 submitted any medical record to substantiate his claim of ill health, the Labour Court passed the award on the presumption that the petitioner could not attend duty on account of ill health. However, the Labour Court held that the order of the removal was disproportionate to the charges framed and directed reinstatement of the 2"'* respondent. The learned counsel also submits that the 2'"'^ respondent has been reinstated into service and is still in service of the petitioner. nd respondent has not -3- W.P. No.29288 of 2012 represented the 2""' respondent has obtained N.O.C. the 2 4. Sri T.V.V. Koteswara Rao, respondent, submits that the 2"*^ that he is no longer representing 5. There is no the learned counsel, who and r nd respondent. representation for the 2"'^ respondent and 6. This Court, while admitting no counter filed, granted a stay of the of continuity of service along with 18.09.2012. the writ petition operation of the award to the extent attendant benefits vide order dated 7. Heard the learned standing counsel for the petitioner and perused the record. 8. Considering the submission petitioner and after Court has gone into the i this Court deems it awarding 75% of the back of the learned standing counsel for the perusing the record, it is evident that the Labour in detail and passed the award. However, appropriate to modify the award to the issue extent of wages, as the Labour Court did not frame the wages. Accordingly, the award wages to the 2"^' respondent is issue relating to the entitlement of back to the extent of the entitlement of back modified. The rest of the award is upheld. 9. With the above, the writ petition is allowed In part. No costs, 10. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this writ petition shall stand closed. That Rule Nisi has been made absolute as above. Witness the Hon’ble the Chief Justice Sri Dhiraj Singh Thakur on this Monday, Twenty Fourth day of February, Two Thousand and Twenty Five. Sd/- U.SRI DEVI ASSISTANT FJEGISTRAR FFICER //TRUE COPY// SECTIO To, 1. The Presiding Office, Labour Court, Guntur, Guntur District 2. One CC to Sri Vinod Kumar Tarlada (SC for APSRTC) [OPUC] One CC to Sri Ajay Kumar Kulkarni, Advocate [OPUC] Two CCs to GP for Labour, High Court of Andhra Pradesh. [OUT] Three CD Copies. 3. 4. ^7 5. ssb HIGH COURT DATED:24/02/2025 ORDER WP.No.29288 of 2012 if n JUL 2025 Co, rrentSectigpXT^ PARTLY ALLOWING THE W.P. WITHOUT COSTS