Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana)
Unknown vs Sri G.Balaswamy And Another on 18 December, 2014
Bench: L.Narasimha Reddy, A.V.Sesha Sai
THE HONBLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY AND THE HONBLE SRI JUSTICE A.V.SESHA SAI
WRIT APPEAL No.1319 of 2006
18-12-2014
The Managing Director, APSRTC and another. .Appellants
Sri G.Balaswamy and another..Respondents
Counsel for the appellants: Sri Dande Radhika
Counsel for respondents: G.P. for Labour &
Sri V.Narasimha Goud
<GIST:
>HEAD NOTE:
? Cases referred:
1. 2004 SC (L&S) 83
THE HONBLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY
AND
THE HONBLE SRI JUSTICE A.V.SESHA SAI
WRIT APPEAL No.1319 of 2006
JUDGMENT:(Per LNR,J) Feeling aggrieved by the dismissal of W.P.No.21598 of 2006, the petitioners therein filed this writ appeal.
The 1st respondent herein was working as a Mechnical Supervisor with the appellants. He was issued a charge sheet, dated 02.06.1995 alleging the act of misconduct of unauthorised absence. After conducting departmental enquiry, the appellants removed the 1st respondent from service through order, dated 29.09.1995. The departmental appeal was rejected on 22.05.2000.
The 1st respondent filed I.D.No.181 of 2000 before the Labour Court-III, Hyderabad under Section 2-A(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short the Act). Through award, dated 13.03.2003, the Labour Court has set aside the order of removal and directed reinstatement into service with backwages from the date of removal till the date of reinstatement. The said award was published on 16.06.2003.
The 1st respondent was reinstated into service on 10.08.2005. Claiming that he was entitled to be paid backwages from the date of expiry of 30 days from the date of publication of the award till the date of reinstatement into service, the 1st respondent filed M.P.No.15 of 2005 before the Labour Court under Section 33(C)(2) of the Act. It was pleaded that though he reported to duty, soon after the expiry of 30 days from the date of publication of the award, the appellants did not take him into service and on the other hand, they took the plea that they did not receive the copy of the award; and he was reinstated only on 10.08.2005.
The appellants filed a counter affidavit in the M.P. Their plea was that the 1st respondent herein did not report to duty and it was only in February 2005, he made a representation and on 04.08.2005, he got issued a notice through an Advocate and soon thereafter, he was reinstated into service.
The Labour Court allowed the M.P. through order, dated 02.06.2006 directing the appellants to pay backwages for a period of two years aggregating to Rs.1,06,620/-. The said order was challenged by the appellants by filing the writ petition. Learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition, taking note of the judgment of the Honble Supreme Court in APSRTC vs. B.Vikram Reddy . Hence, this writ appeal.
Heard learned counsel for the appellants and learned counsel for the respondents.
The 1st respondent was removed from service on the ground of misconduct. However, the order of removal was set aside by the Labour Court through its award in I.D. The award became final and the 1st respondent was also reinstated into service. However, claiming the backwages for the period between the date on which the award became operational and the date on which he was reinstated into service, the 1st respondent initiated proceedings under Section 33(C)(2) of the Act. The Labour Court allowed the application by observing that there was no justification for the appellants in not reinstating the 1st respondent into service.
It is true that in Vikram Reddys case (1 supra), the Honble Supreme Court held that an employer would be under obligation to reinstate an employee into service, once the award is published and became operational. However, one sentence in that judgment becomes relevant, which reads:
In the absence of any material on record to show as to why the corporation could not implement the award, the respondent is justified in getting full wages from 21.6.1997 till reinstatement is effected An employee would no doubt get a right to be reinstated into service on expiry of 30 days from the date of the publication of the award, unless it is stayed by the Court of competent jurisdiction. However, for reaping the benefit of the award, the employee must be present. It is not uncommon that on being removed or dismissed from service, the workman would take up other employment or he may be otherwise engaged. It is only when he presents himself before the employer, armed with the award, that a possibility would exist for the employer to take him into service. Verification of physical condition and other job requirements is another aspect. If the employee himself does not turn up, for his own reasons, the obligation for the employer to pay the wages under the award for the period posterior to the award became operational does not arise.
In the instant case, the first evidence of the respondent appearing before the appellants claiming the benefit of reinstatement is the representation dated 03.02.2005. If there existed any other evidence to show that the 1st respondent approached the appellants on any date anterior to that, the obligation would commence from that date. Unfortunately, in this case, the Labour Court did not record any finding as to when the 1st respondent approached the appellants for reinstatement. Strictly speaking, it is a matter for remanding on that account. However, it is brought to the notice of this Court that the appellants have since paid the wages as directed by the Labour Court in the order in the M.P. If that be so, the appellants shall not be entitled to recover them. If on the other hand, the amount was not paid, they shall not be under obligation to pay it.
The writ appeal is accordingly disposed of, with the above observation.
The miscellaneous petition filed in this writ appeal shall also stand disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. ________________________ L.NARASIMHA REDDY, J _________________ A.V.SESHA SAI, J Date: 18.12.2014