Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2024 DIGILAW 268 (AP)

Depot Manager, Apsrtc v. P. Showreelu

2024-02-20

A.V.RAVINDRA BABU, RAVI NATH TILHARI

body2024
COMMON JUDGMENT A.V.Ravindra Babu, J. - Both these Intra Court Appeals are under Clause 15 of Letters Patent, in view of the order of the learned single Judge, dated 28.10.2022, in Writ Petition No.2345 of 2019. 2. Challenge in Writ Appeal No.433 of 2023 is by the appellants viz., the Depot Manager, Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation (APSRTC), Guntur-I Depot, Guntur and the Regional Manager, APSRTC, Guntur to the order, dated 28.10.2022, in Writ Petition No.2345 of 2019 of the learned single Judge insofar as setting-aside the Award, dated 09.12.2005, in Industrial Dispute No.12 of 2010 of the Labour Court relating to denial of back wages is concerned and challenge in Writ Appeal No.539 of 2023 is to the above said order of the learned single Judge by the appellant/writ petitioner viz., P. Showreelu insofar as allowing back wages from the date of his reinstatement into service instead of from the date of his termination of service. 3. The parties to these Writ Appeals will hereinafter be referred to as described before the learned single Judge in Writ Petition No.2345 of 2019, for the sake of convenience. 4. Brief facts leading to filing of Writ Petition No.2345 of 2019 by the petitioner, in substance, are that the petitioner joined as a Driver in APSRTC in 1997 and worked as such up to 10.12.2008. While the petitioner was working in the 1st respondent Depot, he was issued a charge sheet, dated 11.12.2008, alleging that when he was performing his duty in the APSRTC Bus bearing registration No.AP-28-Z-1473 on the route Guntur to Amaravathi on 01.12.2008, an Auto bearing registration No.AP-7W-2074, coming in opposite direction, dashed the bus driven by the petitioner at about 11:30 p.m. as a consequence of which, death of 3 passengers traveling in the auto occurred on the spot and further other passengers received injuries. The accident was occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the petitioner and he was responsible for the damage caused to the bus, which constitutes misconduct under Regulation 28 of APSRTC Employees (Conduct) Regulations, 1963. To the aforesaid charge sheet, the petitioner made his explanation denying the charge leveled against him. Accordingly, a domestic enquiry was conducted. Basing on the erroneous findings of the Enquiry Officer, he was removed from service vide order, dated 29.04.2009, of the first respondent. To the aforesaid charge sheet, the petitioner made his explanation denying the charge leveled against him. Accordingly, a domestic enquiry was conducted. Basing on the erroneous findings of the Enquiry Officer, he was removed from service vide order, dated 29.04.2009, of the first respondent. When petitioner approached his superior authorities by way of Appeal as well as a petition for Review, they were rejected, on merits. Hence, the petitioner was compelled to raise an Industrial Dispute viz., ID No.12 of 2010 before the Labour Court, Guntur. The Presiding Officer of the Labour Court, Guntur on comprehensive adjudication of the dispute, passed an order on 09.12.2005, by partly allowing the same with a direction to the respondents therein to reinstate the petitioner giving continuity of service but with a finding that the petitioner is not entitled for back wages and attendant benefits. Pursuant to the Award of the Labour Court, petitioner was reinstated into service but without back wages. When the misconduct leveled against him was not proved, denial of granting of back wages is nothing but illegal and contrary to the settled legal principles. Hence, the petitioner, felt aggrieved of the aforesaid Award of the Labour Court, insofar as denying back wages to him, filed the Writ Petition so as to give a direction to the respondents to grant him back wages from the date of his termination of service. 5. The respondents/APSRTC, in the aforesaid Writ Petition, got filed a counter resisting the claim of the petitioner and denying the averments in the Writ Petition. They put forth a contention, in substance, that due to the rash and negligent driving of the petitioner, which occurred on 01.12.2008, 3 passengers travelling in the auto died on the spot and 3 other passengers died at the hospital and other passengers in the auto received injuries. There was also damage caused to the bus. Had the petitioner taken precautionary measures, the aforesaid accident would have been averted. Police registered a case in Crime No. 127 of 2008 for the offences under Sections 304-A and 337 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short, 'the IPC'). The Enquiry Officer conducted a detailed enquiry and submitted his report with findings that charge leveled against the petitioner is proved. Police registered a case in Crime No. 127 of 2008 for the offences under Sections 304-A and 337 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short, 'the IPC'). The Enquiry Officer conducted a detailed enquiry and submitted his report with findings that charge leveled against the petitioner is proved. In response to the aforesaid findings of the Enquiry Officer, explanation as well as objections of the petitioner were called for and ultimately final orders were passed removing the petitioner from service. When the petitioner filed an Appeal and Review, they were rejected by the concerned authorities, on merits. The accident occurred was a major accident where 6 persons died and nine persons were injured. When the petitioner was reinstated into service with continuity of service, the question of claiming back wages and attendant benefits by him does not arise. Hence, the Writ Petition is devoid of merits as such it is liable to be dismissed. 6. On hearing both sides and after considering the material on record, the learned single Judge allowed the Writ Petition and set aside the Award made by the Labour Court insofar as relating to denial of back wages is concerned with a finding that the petitioner is entitled to back wages and accordingly directed the respondents to pay back wages to the petitioner from the date of his reinstatement within a period of four (4) months from the date of receipt of a copy of the order. 7. As against the order of the learned single Judge, as referred to above, the un-successful respondents viz., the Depot Manager, APSRTC, Guntur-I and the Regional Manager, APSRTC, Guntur filed Writ Appeal No.433 of 2023. 8. Felt aggrieved of the situation that the back wages are awarded from the date of his reinstatement into service, the writ petitioner filed Writ Appeal No.539 of 2023 contending that he is entitled for back wages from the date of his termination of service but not from the date of his reinstatement into service. 9. Now in deciding the instant Writ Appeals, the points that arise for consideration are: 1. Whether the order in Writ Petition No.2345 of 2019, dated 28.10.2022, insofar as setting-aside the Award of the Labour Court relating to denial of back wages in favour of the petitioner thereby allowing the back wages to him is tenable under law and facts? 2. Now in deciding the instant Writ Appeals, the points that arise for consideration are: 1. Whether the order in Writ Petition No.2345 of 2019, dated 28.10.2022, insofar as setting-aside the Award of the Labour Court relating to denial of back wages in favour of the petitioner thereby allowing the back wages to him is tenable under law and facts? 2. Whether the order of the learned single Judge in Writ Petition No.2345 of 2019, dated 28.10.2022, insofar as allowing the back wages from the date of reinstatement instead of from the date of termination of service is in accordance with law? POINT Nos.1 & 2: 10. Sri Solomon Raju Manchala, learned counsel for the appellants/APSRTC in Writ Appeal No.433 of 2023, would contend that the order passed by the learned single Judge in setting aside the order of the Labour Court insofar as denial of back wages to the respondent/writ petitioner is concerned, it is not tenable either on law or on facts. He would further submit that acquittal in a criminal case will have no bearing at all over the disciplinary proceedings, as the standard of proof in a criminal case i.e., alleged rash and negligent act and further a domestic enquiry are totally different. When the learned Presiding Officer, Labour Court on facts made findings that the writ petitioner is not entitled for back wages and attendant benefits, the learned single Judge ought not to have allowed such benefit in a writ jurisdiction. The learned single Judge did not consider the fact that, on account of the negligent attitude of the petitioner, 6 persons traveling in the auto met with accident for no fault and apart from that, other persons therein received injuries and there was also damage to the APSRTC bus. The learned single Judge did not consider the legal principles in allowing the Writ Petition to claim back wages. The learned single Judge did not follow the legal principles and he would contend that, in disciplinary proceedings, the technicalities of law cannot be invoked. The learned single Judge did not consider the legal principles in allowing the Writ Petition to claim back wages. The learned single Judge did not follow the legal principles and he would contend that, in disciplinary proceedings, the technicalities of law cannot be invoked. Learned counsel in support of his contentions, would rely upon the decisions of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation v. Dilip Uttam Jayabhay, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 3, State of Madras v. A.R. Srinivasan, AIR 1966 (SC) 1827 and a decision of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad in K.H.A. Swamy v. Depot Manager, APSRTC, Kukatpally, 2007 (4) ALD 597 =MANU/AP/0276/2007 and he would canvass that these decisions were already mentioned in the grounds of Appeal. He would further submit that the Enquiry Officer in the departmental enquiry is not bound by strict Rules of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 but he has to follow only the principles of natural justice and, in support of his contention, he would rely upon a decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in State of Haryana and another v. Rattan Singh, (1977) 2 SCC 491 . He would further rely upon the decisions of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Chairman-cum-MD v. Ananta Saha, LAWS (SC)-2011-4-37, which was decided on 06.04.2011, and in J.K. Synthetics Limited v. K.P. Agarwal, LAWS (SC)-2007-2-1. He would submit that the petitioner failed to prove before the Labour Court that he was not gainfully employed during subsistence of the order of termination of service as such the petitioner was rightly denied the benefit of back wages and the learned single Judge ought not to have reversed the order of the Labour Court in this regard. Insofar as Writ Appeal No.539 of 2023 is concerned, he would canvass on behalf of the respondents/APSRTC that when the back wages were allowed, it can only be from the date of termination of service of the petitioner but not from the date of his reinstatement into service but in the event of allowing the Writ Appeal No.433 of 2023, Writ Appeal No.539 of 2023 would become infructuous. 11. 11. Sri M. Pitchaiah, learned counsel for the first respondent/writ petitioner in Writ Appeal No.433 of 2023, would strenuously contend that, absolutely, in the preliminary enquiry and the domestic enquiry without resorting to record any evidence, whatsoever, the Enquiry Officer made erroneous findings that the accident was occurred due to the rash and negligent act of the petitioner. When his Appeal and Review were rejected, he duly approached the Labour Court by raising an Industrial Dispute in accordance with law. The findings of the Labour Court, exonerating the petitioner of the charge with specific findings that there was no evidence against the petitioner to prove the charge, were not challenged by the APSRTC before any competent authority. Insofar as setting-aside the order of the Enquiry Officer by the Labour Court directing reinstatement of the petitioner into service is concerned, the APSRTC did not challenge the same. It is the petitioner who felt aggrieved in denying back wages to him and filed the Writ Petition. 12. The learned counsel would submit that in Industrial Dispute, there was a clear whisper that though he made some efforts to get alternative employment but he was not able to get any alternative employment. So, he made a pleading in the Industrial Dispute No.12 of 2010 that he could not secure any employment till date from the date of his removal from service as such prayed for back wages and other attendant benefits. Though the petitioner cited various authorities before the Labour Court but they were not appreciated properly and he was denied the benefit of back wages. Felt aggrieved of the same, he filed Writ Petition No.2345 of 2019 and the learned single Judge rightly appreciated the case of petitioner and granted the benefit of back wages by setting-aside the order of the Labour Court but the learned single Judge mistakenly allowed the benefit of back wages from the date of his reinstatement into service. He would submit that from the date of reinstatement, the petitioner however would get his regular salary and accordingly he has been drawing his salary from the date of his reinstatement. Restoration of back wages should only be from the date of his termination of service. He would submit that from the date of reinstatement, the petitioner however would get his regular salary and accordingly he has been drawing his salary from the date of his reinstatement. Restoration of back wages should only be from the date of his termination of service. The citations referred by the petitioner to contend that the standard of proof in the departmental enquiry and the criminal case are different are well settled but without challenging the order of the Labour Court now, at this stage, the APSRTC cannot rely upon the aforesaid citations. The law is very clear that under what circumstances back wages can be restored. Even the decisions cited by learned counsel for the appellants/APSRTC in W.A. No.433 of 2023 i.e., Ananta Saha (supra) and J.K. Synthetics Limited (supra) are favourable to his party. The petitioner was working in the APSRTC right from 09.04.1999 and later his services were regularized. He had considerable length of service before his termination. He was not gainfully employed anywhere after his termination. The APSRTC authorities did not place any piece of material to show that during the period of termination of his service, petitioner was earning any income by employing himself elsewhere. In such circumstances, when there was no evidence at all to prove anything against the petitioner, his termination of service was nothing but wrongful and when the order of termination was set-aside by directing to reinstate the petitioner, denial made by the Labour Court for the benefit of back wages was not tenable under law as such the learned single Judge rightly set-aside the Award of the Labour Court. Ultimately he would submit that Writ Appeal No.433 of 2023 is liable to be dismissed and Writ Appeal No.539 of 2023 is liable to be allowed by allowing the benefit of back wages from the date of his termination of service. 13. For better appreciation, it is pertinent to look into the Award of the Labour Court in ID No.12 of 2010 under which the petitioner was directed for reinstatement of service but with denial of the benefit of back wages. 13. For better appreciation, it is pertinent to look into the Award of the Labour Court in ID No.12 of 2010 under which the petitioner was directed for reinstatement of service but with denial of the benefit of back wages. The petitioner raised ID No.12 of 2010 with allegations that, in fact, it was Auto bearing registration No.AP-7W-2074 came in opposite direction and gave dash to the bus resulting into death of 3 passengers in the auto on the spot and resulting into injuries to several passengers therein and that he was subjected to departmental enquiry for no fault of him. Narrating the events happened, the petitioner raised such Industrial Dispute wherein the respondents i.e., the Depot Manager, APSRTC, Guntur-I and the Regional Manager, APSRTC, Guntur filed counter admitting the fact that originally the petitioner was a casual driver from 09.04.1999 and he was de-casulized by taking him into regular service on 01.01.2005. Their counter allegations were that on account of the rash and negligent act of the petitioner, the accident was occurred and a preliminary enquiry was conducted and further the Police registered FIR against the petitioner and basing on the preliminary enquiry report and charge sheet, the enquiry was conducted and Enquiry Officer submitted his report holding that the charge was proved. So, the APSRTC sought to justify their action in ID No.12 of 2010. 14. The Labour Court took into consideration the fact that criminal case i.e., C.C. No.123 of 2009 before the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Mangalagiri was ended in acquittal with findings that prosecution did not prove the rash and negligent act against the petitioner and that according to the First Information Report given by the de-facto complainant both the bus as well auto dashed against each other. It considered that as per explanation of the service conductor and statement of eye witness viz., Shaik Mastan the bus was stationed on the left side margin of the culvert and auto with a load of 15 passengers i.e., overloaded was moving with high speed and dashed the bus in the process of avoiding a ditch on the road and on seeing the same, the driver of the APSRTC bus took right side on seeing the auto coming in wrong route so as to avert the accident because it came in wrong route and in the meanwhile the accident occurred. The statement of the conductor was recorded in the preliminary enquiry. It further looked into the rough sketch and found that the bus was stationed on the left side of the margin and according to the said rough sketch, the auto came opposite to the bus and gave dash to the left side of the bus. It looked into the preliminary enquiry statement of the petitioner where he gave statement that accident took place since the auto driver could not control it and further to the effect that auto driver allowed more passengers to sit in the auto crossing the stipulated capacity and even he allowed persons to sit on both sides of himself on the driver seat. The Labour Court further looked into the fact that the Enquiry Officer during the domestic enquiry did not record any statements and simply relying upon the preliminary enquiry report made findings against the petitioner. The Labour Court further looked into the judgment of the criminal Court in acquitting the petitioner. Looking into all those findings, the Labour Court considered that, according to the judgment of the criminal Court, there was no possibility for the driver of the bus to drive the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner at the place of offence. 15. Therefore, the Labour Court looked into the evidence placed during the domestic enquiry and during criminal trial and was of the view that the petitioner was not responsible for the accident. The Labour Court further arrived at a conclusion that the findings given by the Enquiry Officer needs interference. While holding so, the Labour Court set-aside the order of the Enquiry Officer thereby allowed the Industrial Dispute No.12 of 2010 directing the respondents/APSRTC to reinstate the petitioner giving the continuity of service but with findings that the petitioner is not entitled for back wages and attendant benefits. 16. It is to be noted that the APSRTC authorities did not challenge the order of the Labour Court insofar as giving direction for reinstatement of the petitioner into service with specific findings that there was no evidence to prove that the petitioner was negligent in causing the accident. The APSRTC authorities having suffered with such an adverse order from the Labour Court did not choose to challenge the findings of the Labour Court. The APSRTC authorities having suffered with such an adverse order from the Labour Court did not choose to challenge the findings of the Labour Court. When that being so, at this stage, without challenging the Award of the Labour Court, the appellants in Writ Appeal No.433 of 2023 cannot contend that the judgment of acquittal in criminal trial has no bearing or relevance on the disciplinary proceedings. In that view of the matter, the attempt made by learned counsel for the appellants in Writ Appeal No.433 of 2023 to rely upon the decisions of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Dilip Uttam Jayabhay (supra), A.R. Srinivasan (supra) and a decision of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad in K.H.A. Swamy (supra) is of no use. When the APSRTC authorities did not challenge the order of the Labour Court, at this stage, they cannot contend that the standard of proof in a criminal case and departmental enquiry are different. In fact, the Labour Court made an extensive order so as to give adverse findings against the APSRTC authorities and the APSRTC authorities kept quiet without challenging the aforesaid order. In that view of the matter, the aforesaid three decisions and further another decision cited by learned counsel for the appellants in Writ Appeal No.433 of 2023 i.e., Rattan Singh (supra) are of no use. 17. Now the challenge in Writ Appeal No.433 of 2023 by the APSRTC is virtually to set-aside the order of the learned single Judge so as to deny the benefit of back wages. The fact remained is that, even according to the writ petitioner, pursuant to the orders of the Labour Court, they got reinstatement of the writ petitioner. So, they have no grievance at all as on this date with regard to reinstatement of the petitioner. Their grievance is only against the order of the learned single Judge in allowing the benefit of back wages. 18. Now we would like to deal with the legality or otherwise of the order of the learned single Judge in restoring the benefit of back wages to the petitioner. 19. Their grievance is only against the order of the learned single Judge in allowing the benefit of back wages. 18. Now we would like to deal with the legality or otherwise of the order of the learned single Judge in restoring the benefit of back wages to the petitioner. 19. As evident from the Award of the Labour Court, the counsel, who pursued the case before the Labour Court, canvassed a contention that the petitioner is entitled for the benefit of back wages and the learned counsel cited several decisions in support of his contention that the petitioner has to be reinstated with back wages. The Labour Court made a finding that the said decisions on the aspect of back wages are not apt to the present facts of the case. Obviously, there was no discussion about the so called decisions. Learned counsel for the petitioner in Writ Petition No.2345 of 2019 before the learned single Judge relied upon the legal principles pertaining to the back wages and he has cited the decisions of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Shambhu Nath Goyal v. Bank of Baroda and others, (1983) 4 SCC 491 , Deepali Gundu Surwase v. Kranti Junior Adhyapak Mahavidyalaya and others, (2013) 10 SCC 324 . On the other hand, learned Standing Counsel for the respondents/APSRTC before the learned single Judge relied upon a decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation, Jaipur v. Phool Chand, (2018) 18 SCC 299 . 20. The learned single Judge referred the Award made by the Labour Court to the effect that from the evidence placed during the domestic enquiry there was a finding by the Labour Court that there was no evidence regarding the alleged employment of the petitioner subsequent to the date of his removal. The learned single Judge further relied upon Section 11-A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 to the effect that it incapacitated the petitioner to adduce any evidence with regard to the employment after the date of his termination from service till the date of his reinstatement into service. 21. Admittedly, the law is well settled under what circumstances an employee who is reinstated into service can be allowed to the benefit of back wages. 21. Admittedly, the law is well settled under what circumstances an employee who is reinstated into service can be allowed to the benefit of back wages. Even in J.K. Synthetics Limited (supra), relied upon by learned counsel for the appellants/APSRTC in Writ Appeal No.433 of 2023, the Hon'ble Apex Court dealt with a situation where an employee can be awarded with the benefit of back wages at the time of reinstatement of service and held as follows: '(18.) Coming back to back-wages, even if the court finds it necessary to award back-wages, the question will be whether back-wages should be awarded fully or only partially (and if so the percentage). That depends upon the facts and circumstances of each case. Any income received by the employee during the relevant period on account of alternative employment or business is a relevant factor to be taken note of while awarding back- wages, in addition to the several factors mentioned in Rudhan Singh (supra) and Udai Narain Pandey (supra). Therefore, it is necessary for the employee to plead that he was not gainfully employed from the date of his termination. While an employee cannot be asked to prove the negative, he has to at least assert on oath that he was neither employed nor engaged in any gainful business or venture and that he did not have any income. Then the burden will shift to the employer. But there is, however, no obligation on the terminated employee to search for or secure alternative employment. Be that as it may.' 22. The Hon'ble Apex court further illustrated certain circumstances where on account of the reinstatement there cannot be benefit of any back wages. The findings of the Hon'ble Apex Court in J.K. Synthetics Limited (supra) are appropriate to be extracted here: '(19.) .................... What requires to be noted in cases where finding of misconduct is affirmed and only the punishment is interfered with (as contrasted from cases where termination is held to be illegal or void) is that there is no automatic reinstatement; and if reinstatement is directed, it is not automatically with retrospective effect from the date of termination. Therefore, where reinstatement is a consequence of imposition of a lesser punishment, neither back-wages nor continuity of service nor consequential benefits, follow as a natural or necessary consequence of such reinstatement. Therefore, where reinstatement is a consequence of imposition of a lesser punishment, neither back-wages nor continuity of service nor consequential benefits, follow as a natural or necessary consequence of such reinstatement. In cases where the misconduct is held to be proved, and reinstatement is itself a consequential benefit arising from imposition of a lesser punishment, award of back wages for the period when the employee has not worked, may amount to rewarding the delinquent employee and punishing the employer for taking action for the misconduct committed by the employee. That should be avoided. Similarly, in such cases, even where continuity of service is directed, it should only be for purposes of pensionary/retirement benefits, and not for other benefits like increments, promotions etc. (20.) But there are two exceptions. The first is where the court sets aside the termination as a consequence of employee being exonerated or being found not guilty of the misconduct. Second is where the Court reaches a conclusion that the inquiry was held in respect of a frivolous issue or petty misconduct, as a camouflage to get rid of the employee or victimize him, and the disproportionately excessive punishment is a result of such scheme or intention. In such cases, the principles relating to back-wages etc. will be the same as those applied in the cases of an illegal termination.' 23. Turning to another decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Ananta Saha (supra) also, the Hon'ble Apex Court at Para No.47 held as follows: '47. The issue of entitlement of back wages has been considered by this Court time and again and consistently held that even after punishment imposed upon the employee is quashed by the court or tribunal, the payment of back wages still remains discretionary. Power to grant back wages is to be exercised by the court/tribunal keeping in view the facts in their entirety as no straitjacket formula can be evolved, nor a rule of universal application can be laid for such cases. Even if the delinquent is re-instated, it would not automatically make him entitled for back wages as entitlement to get back wages is independent of re-instatement. The factual scenario and the principles of justice, equity and good conscience have to be kept in view by an appropriate authority/court or tribunal. Even if the delinquent is re-instated, it would not automatically make him entitled for back wages as entitlement to get back wages is independent of re-instatement. The factual scenario and the principles of justice, equity and good conscience have to be kept in view by an appropriate authority/court or tribunal. In such matters, the approach of the court or the tribunal should not be rigid or mechanical but flexible and realistic. (Vide: U.P.SRTC v. Mitthu Singh (2006 AIR (SC) 3018; Secy., Akola Taluka Education Society & Anr. v. Shivaji & Ors., (2007) 9 SCC 564 ; and Managing Director, Balasaheb Desai Sahakari S.K. Limited v. Kashinath Ganapati Kambale, (2009) 2 SCC 288 ).' 24. From the conspectus of legal principles, the necessary criteria regarding the benefit of back wages in the event of reinstatement of an employee is such that the length of service put up by the employee, his conduct and that he has no income during the termination of service i.e., from the date of termination till the date of his reinstatement etc. Especially from the principle laid down in J. K Synthetics Limited (supra), the employee has to plead that he was not gainfully employed from the date of his termination and then the burden will shift to his employer. 25. By looking into the above legal principles and into the pleadings of the petitioner in ID No.12 of 2010, it is categorical that he made necessary pleading to the effect that he searched for an alternative job but he could not get any job from the date of termination of his service till the date of filing Industrial Dispute before the Labour Court. So, the petitioner made necessary pleadings before the Labour Court in this regard. Even as evident from the findings made by the Labour Court, there was a categorical observation that there is no evidence regarding the alleged employment, earnings of the petitioner subsequent to the date of his removal. So, it is a case where the APSRTC authorities in the ID did not place anything contra to the averments made by the petitioner that he was not at all gainfully employed after the date of his termination from service. So, it is a case where the APSRTC authorities in the ID did not place anything contra to the averments made by the petitioner that he was not at all gainfully employed after the date of his termination from service. The learned Presiding Officer, Labour Court having given a finding that there is no evidence regarding the alternative gainful employment of the petitioner from the date of his termination of service till the date of his reinstatement, declined to grant the benefit of back wages on the ground that the decisions cited by learned counsel for the writ petitioner are not applicable to the facts of the case. The learned Presiding Officer, Labour Court did not discuss about the said decisions and the particulars of the citations were also not recorded in the order. The learned single Judge, in our considered view, rightly looked into the decisions cited by the writ petitioner and learned counsel for the respondents/APSRTC. Even the legal principle in the decisions of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Shambhu Nath Goyal (supra), Deepali Gundu Surwase (supra) and Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation (supra) is also such that a duty is cast upon the employee before the Labour Court to plead that he was not gainfully employed during the termination of his service. The learned single Judge rightly dealt with the legal principles in the aforesaid decisions. 26. As per the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation (supra), a duty is cast upon the employer to show that the employee was gainfully employed during the relevant period of termination order. So, what is evident from the above is that the appellants before the Labour Court did not whisper and did not place anything to show that the petitioner was gainfully employed during the period of his termination. The learned Presiding Officer, Labour Court while ordering for reinstatement of the petitioner with findings that the evidence on record did not disclose that he was responsible for causing death of 6 persons and injuries to other persons ought to have allowed the benefit of back wages, when the petitioner made a pleading that he was not gainfully employed during the subsistence of his termination. In our considered view, the learned single Judge rightly set-aside the order of the Labour Court insofar as restoring the benefit of back wages is concerned. 27. In our considered view, the learned single Judge rightly set-aside the order of the Labour Court insofar as restoring the benefit of back wages is concerned. 27. However, as rightly contended by the learned counsel, benefit of allowing back wages should only be from the date of termination of the petitioner from his service. From the date of reinstatement the petitioner would however be drawing the regular salary in the eligible scale of pay. The prayer of the petitioner in the Writ Petition was also to allow the benefit of back wages from the date of his termination from service till the date of his reinstatement. The learned single Judge found favour with the case of the petitioner, but it appears that inadvertently allowed such benefit from the date of his reinstatement instead of from the date of termination of services of the petitioner. Absolutely, the petitioner would not be getting any back wages if the benefit is from the date of his reinstatement. Under the circumstances, we are of the considered view that there are no merits in Writ Appeal No.433 of 2023. However, insofar as Writ Appeal No.539 of 2023 is concerned, it is liable to be allowed so as to modify the order of the learned single Judge, accordingly. 28. In the result, Writ Appeal No.433 of 2023, filed by the appellants/APSRTC is dismissed and the Writ Appeal No.539 of 2023 filed by the appellant/writ petitioner is allowed modifying the order of the learned single Judge in Writ Petition No.2345 of 2019, dated 18.10.2022, to the effect that the petitioner is entitled for back wages from the date of his termination of service till the date of his reinstatement and directing the respondents therein to give the benefit of back wages to the writ petitioner from the date of termination of service till the date of his reinstatement. No order as to costs. Consequently, Miscellaneous Applications pending, if any, in these Writ Appeals shall stand closed.