The court ruled that the denial of continuity of service to the petitioner, despite reinstatement, was legally unsustainable due to insufficient evidence proving allegations.

O R D E R:

This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following relief:

“…to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus by declaring the impugned Award dt: 25- 01-2005 on the file of the 2nd respondent to the extent of denying back wages to the petitioner and continuity of service and directing that, the reinstatement of the petitioner shall be treated as fresh appointment, as being illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutional and consequential direct the 1st respondent to pay the back wages along with continuity of service to the petitioner and pass such other order/s as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case…”

2. Heard Ms.Sunita Nawandar, learned counsel representing Sri Vivek Jain, learned counsel for the petitioner; Sri N.Sreedhar Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for Telangana State Road Transport Corporation, for respondent No.1; and learned Government Pleader for Labour for respondent No.2.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was appointed as Conductor on 25.05.1984 and he was removed from service vide order dated 25.09.2001, on the ground of certain ticket irregularities. Challenging the same, the petitioner filed appeal and review petition and the same were rejected on 22.04.2002 and 17.12.2002 by the Divisional Manager and Regional Manager, Adilabad, respectively. Therefore, the petitioner filed I.D.No.169 of 2003 before the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Godavarikhani, (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Tribunal’) under Section 2-A (2) of The Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 , seeking to set aside the removal order dated 25.09.2001, passed by respondent No.1. The Tribunal had partly allowed the said I.D. vide Award dated 25.01.2005, directing respondent No.1 to reinstate the petitioner into service without back wages and continuity of service. It is further submitted that respondent No.2 ought to have seen that the charges against the petitioner were not proved beyond the reasonable doubt and the removal order was passed mechanically without application of mind. Further, the removal order is disproportionate to the allegations levelled against the petitioner. Hence, respondent No.2 ought to have granted back wages and continuity of service to the petitioner. Therefore, learned counsel prays this Court to direct respondent No.1 to pay back wages along with continuity of service to the petitioner. In support of his contentions, learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon the judgment rendered by the Division Bench of Gujarat High Court in Divisional Controller v. L.H. of Kanjibahi Ramjibhai Vekaria 1

4. Per contra, learned Standing Counsel for respondent No.1 submits that the petitioner was appointed as Conductor on

1 2013 SCC OnLine Guj 2391

contract basis on 25.05.1984, later he was converted as a daily wage Conductor w.e.f. 04.06.1985 and several penalties were inflicted on the petitioner on similar grounds of cash and ticket irregularities prior to his removal from service. It is further submitted that basing on the oral and documentary evidence, Enquiry Officer’s Report and the objections submitted by the petitioner, respondent No.1 came to a conclusion that the imposition of penalty of removal from service was just and proper. Further, the Tribunal after considering the evidence and facts of the case has passed the Award holding that the charges levelled against the petitioner were proved. The Tribunal even after holding that the charges levelled against the petitioner were proved by observing that the previous conduct of the petitioner is not satisfactory and considering the service of the petitioner, rightly dir