IMPORTANT POINT
Grant of back wages is not automatic.

JUDGMENT

S.B. Sinha, J. —

1.Leave granted.

2.Appellant is before us aggrieved by and dissatisfied with a judgment and order dated 30.9.2005 passed by a Division Bench of the High Court of Judicature of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad in Writ Appeal No. 2013 of 2004 affirming a judgment and order dated 26.6.2003 passed by a learned single judge of the said Court allowing the Writ Petition filed by respondent herein challenging an award dated 9.8.1996 passed by the Presiding Officer, Labour Court II, Hyderabad in Industrial Dispute No. 183 of 1993 to the extent it denies the full back wages to the respondent.

3.The admitted fact of the matter is as under:

Respondent was appointed as a conductor of Siddipet Depot on casual basis. He was removed from service by an order dated 8.9.1987 for alleged commission of a misconduct relating to sale of tickets and other irregularities in respect thereof. However, a notification in the mean time was issued notifying 300 vacancies of conductors on 2.9.1987. The last date for filing an application for appointment pursuant thereto was fixed as 14.9.1987. He applied for the said post and eventually appointed by the appellant for its Zaheerabad Depot which is said to be 200 kilometers away from Siddipet Depot.

4.Indisputably, respondent did not disclose that he had earlier been removed from service on the charges of misconduct. His services were also regularized. However, later on the Corporation came to learn that the respondent had concealed the fact as regards his previous employment with it and his removal therefrom. A charge sheet was issued. Pursuant thereto, a departmental proceeding was initiated. In the said departmental proceeding, he was found guilty of the charges levelled against him. A second show cause notice was issued to which respondent showed cause. An order of removal from service was issued on or about 27.4.1992. An appeal preferred thereagainst was also dismissed by reason of order dated 20.10.1992.

5.Respondent filed an application before the Labour Court questioning the said order of removal as also the appellate order in terms of Section 2-A(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short, “the Act”) praying for setting aside the order of removal and reinstatement with all benefits of continuity in service and back wages. One of the objections taken by appellant before the Labour Court was that respondent had obtained employment upon concealing the facts of his previous employment. By reason of an award, the Labour Court although opined that the disciplinary proceeding held against the respondent was valid and proper and the principles of natural justice have been complied with, but relying on or on the basis of a decision of the Andhra Pradesh High Court dated 28.7.1987 that there being no column in the application form for supply of information with regard to previous employment, no misconduct can be said to have been committed by the employee in securing another employment, holding:

“The contention of the corporation that the proforma in that fashion was notified nor requiring specifically to furnish information of the past employment of the candidate is intended mainly for the fresh candidate but not in case of an employee who was already removed for certain acts of misconduct committed and that the petitioner ought to have appealed to the high officials against his removal orders during the past employment for consideration but not to apply for appointment as a fresh candidate, cannot be accepted as rightly that when a particular information was asked to be furnished there was no duty and responsibility cast on a candidate seeking for employment. On an overall consideration of all the material made available on record this court cannot persuaded itself to accept the contentions of the respondent and to justify the impugned removal orders in question before us but on the other hand this Court is satisfied that the impugned punishment of removal imposed on the petitioner is ve