Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana)
Depot Manager, Andhra Pradesh State ... vs V. Chandra Reddy And Anr. on 30 March, 1993
Equivalent citations: 1993(1)ALT684, [1994(68)FLR336], (1993)IILLJ351AP, (1993)IILLJ351SC
JUDGMENT
1. The short question that falls for consideration is whether the order dated April 18, 1990 made in I.D. No. 365 of 1989 on the file of the Labour Court, Godavarikhani, and published in Gazette dated July 23, 1990, could be sustained ?
2. The petitioner-Corporation filed the writ petition inter alia assailing the legality of the order dated April 18, 1990 on various counts. As seen from the record, respondent No. 1 - workman was removed from service of the petitioner-Corporation on December 11, 1975 on charge of misappropriation. As against that order, the workman filed on appeal before the Divisional Manager, Karimnagar, which was rejected on July 30, 1976. Therefore, respondent No. 1 filed a review before the Regional Manager, Karimnagar, which was rejected on December 2, 1976. After waiting for 14 years, respondent No. 1 moved the Labour Court, the 2nd respondent, by way of I.D. No. 365 of 1989, which was disposed of on April 18, 1990 directing reinstatement of respondent No. 1 in service with continuity of service and 40% of the back wages.
3. Sri. K. Harinath, learned Standing Counsel for the Corporation, contends that when respondent No. 2 held that the enquiry conducted by the petitioner-Corporation was valid, directing reinstatement of respondent No. 1 in service with continuity of service and 40% of the back wages is per se illegal. He further contends that respondent No. 2 directed reinstatement with continuity of service and 40% of the backwages only on the ground that the petitioner-Corporation has not filed before respondent No. 2 the documents, which were relied upon by it even though the Industrial Dispute was raised after 14 years, and, therefore, Sri Harinath seeks setting aside the order impugned. In order to sustain his contentions, he had placed before this Court the decision of this Court in A.P.S.R.T.C v. Govt. of A.P. 1990 II CRL 512. While referring to an unreported judgment of a Division Bench of this Court in W.A. No. 1543/88 dated November 24, 1988, the learned single judge held that when the Tribunal finds that the enquiry conducted by the department is valid, then directing reinstatement with backwages is illegal. Sri Harinath has also relied on the decision is Durg District Metal & Engg. Works' Union v. Managing Partner, Bhilai Construction Company, Durg 1982 (3) SC 385 (1) wherein Their Lordships of the Supreme Court held that if the workmen remained unemployed during the period of their unlawful discharge, then only they would be entitled to the backwages, that is to say, if there is no finding by the Tribunal that the workmen were not gainfully employed during that period, then granting backwages would be bad. In those circumstance, the Supreme Court remitted the matter back to the Tribunal to decide as to the fact whether the workmen were employed or not during that period.
4. Sri G. Ramachandra Rao, learned counsel for respondent No. 1, contends that there is no dispute as to the fact of delay in preferring the industrial dispute, but the delay cannot be attributed to the conduct of the workman himself. Though respondent No. 1 was removed by order dated December 11, 1975, he was pursuing his remedies by filing appeal and review before the competent authorities and later on, appeal under Regulation 29 of the Service Regulations was also filed, which has not yet seen the light. Therefore, Sri Ramachandra Rao contends, it cannot be said that respondent No. 1 has contributed himself for the delay.
5. Pursuant to the order dated April 18, 1990 in I.D. No. 365 of 1989, I am told, respondent No. 1 has been reinstated in service. In view of the fact that respondent No. 1 has already been reinstated, I am not inclined, at this stage, to go into the aspect whether the order of respondent No. 2 insofar as directing reinstatement of respondent No. 1 in services is valid or not.
6. Therefore, the only aspect to be considered is whether granting of backwages is valid or not. Respondent No. 2 held that the enquiry conducted by the Corporation is valid and in the absence of any finding to the effect that respondent No. 1 was not gainfully employed during the period, I am of the view, the finding of respondent No. 2 directing granting of 40% of the back wages cannot sustain. Accordingly, the order of respondent No. 2 dated April 18, 1990 in so far as directing granting of 40% of the back wages to respondent No. 1 is set aside. However, for the purpose of other aspects viz., continuity of service and other attendant benefits, if any, the order of respondent No. 2 is no disturbed.
7. The writ petition is allowed in part. No costs.