Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 1024 (AP)

Depot Manager v. H. V. Ashok Rao

2013-11-18

DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU

body2013
ORDER Dama Seshadri Naidu, J. 1. The present Writ Petition is filed by Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation (A.P.S.R.T.C) assailing the Award dated 01.05.2006 in I.D. No. 297 of 2003 passed by the 3rd respondent, setting aside the order of removal of the workman, apart from granting other reliefs including payment of full back wages from the date of suspension to the date of death of the workman. The facts in brief are that the first Respondent was a conductor working in the Petitioner's Corporation. While he was on duty on 26.08.2002, a check was exercised by the officers of the petitioner Corporation and he was charge-sheeted oh 06.09.2002 with the following charge: For having in possession of E.24 tickets bearing Nos. 6/012912 to 012935 of ` 6/- denomination return journey tickets between Tirupathi & Tiruchanur punched on 24.08.2002 at 08.00 hours. "UP" journey only in your cash bag which are not connected to your hand tray while you were performing the duty on the route Tirupathi to Tiruchanur on 26.08.2002 which constitutes misconduct under Reg. 28 (xxxi) of A.P.S.R.T.C Employees (Conduct) Reg. 1963. 2. In course of time, the first respondent submitted explanation on 20.09.2002, but the Corporation, having not been satisfied with it, conducted a Departmental Enquiry, which eventually resulted in the workman's removal from service through an Order dated 07.01.2003. Both the appeal and the review preferred by the first respondent were rejected by the petitioner's Corporation on 24.02.2003 and 29.08.2003 respectively. 3. Aggrieved by the said Order of removal, the first respondent raised an industrial dispute in I.D. No. 297 of 2003 before the 3rd respondent. Pending adjudication of the same, however, the first respondent died, leaving behind the 2nd respondent i.e., wife, who subsequently came on record as respondent No. 2. Eventually, the 3rd respondent allowed the Industrial Dispute and passed an award dated 01.05.2006 setting aside the order of removal. Consequently, the petitioner-Corporation was directed to pay to the 2nd respondent full back wages for the period from the date of suspension to the date of death of first respondent: from 06.09.2003 to 22.10.2004. The 3rd respondent has also further directed the Corporation to provide suitable employment to the 2nd respondent on compassionate grounds. Assailing the same, the Corporation has filed the present Writ Petition. 4. The 3rd respondent has also further directed the Corporation to provide suitable employment to the 2nd respondent on compassionate grounds. Assailing the same, the Corporation has filed the present Writ Petition. 4. Heard the learned Standing Counsel for the Corporation and the learned counsel for the 2nd respondent, apart from perusing the record. 5. It is to be observed that subsequent to filing of the Writ Petition, this Court initially stayed the operation of the Award through its Order dated 26.10.2006. Later, the said Order was modified through the order dated 12.06.2007. Pending disposal of the Writ Petition, the Corporation was directed to deposit 50% of back wages and the 2nd respondent was permitted to withdraw the said amount, on deposit, without furnishing any security. It is submitted by both the counsel that the said amount was duly deposited and was withdrawn by the 2nd respondent. 6. Taking into account the totality of the circumstances and the fact that the first respondent workman has died pending disposal of the Industrial Dispute before the 3rd respondent, in the interest of justice the matter is disposed of with the following observation. 7. Though the Labour Court has awarded full back wages, it is beyond pale of any doubt that in any event of dismissal and subsequent reinstatement, equities have to be balanced while answering the issue of back wage. The indisputable fact is that the first respondent did not work during the period of suspension and subsequent to removal. At the same time, it was not brought on record by the deceased Workman or his successor i.e., 2nd respondent that the workman was not gainfully employed during that period. Accordingly, in case of this nature a careful balancing act has got to be carried out and ordering for payment of 100% back wages may, as has often been observed by this Court, result in miscarriage of justice. It might even amount to rewarding a person who could be possibly at fault. While at the same time, denying completely the back wages to him may also result in miscarriage of justice. If the Corporation has failed to bring home the charge laid against the petitioner, the blame in that regard must be laid at the door step of the Corporation. While at the same time, denying completely the back wages to him may also result in miscarriage of justice. If the Corporation has failed to bring home the charge laid against the petitioner, the blame in that regard must be laid at the door step of the Corporation. Therefore, in my view, ends of justice would be sub-served better if the petitioner is declared as eligible for payment of 50% of the back wages. Therefore, the Writ Petition is allowed modifying that portion of the award passed by the Labour Court in LD. No. 297 of 2003 by declaring that the Writ Petitioner is entitled for payment of 50% of the back wages for the period he was out of employment. 8. Since it is represented by both the counsel that 50% of back wages has already been paid and eventually withdrawn by the 2nd respondent, no further directions need be given in this regard. Insofar as providing any compassionate appointment to the 2nd respondent or any other dependant of the deceased workman is concerned, the same shall be considered by the petitioner's Corporation in accordance with the policy said to be invoked in the Corporation. 9. With the above observations, the Writ Petition is disposed of. No order as to costs. The miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this Writ Petition shall stand closed.