SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(Online)(Tel) 35994

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
Namavarapu Rajeshwar Rao, J
M.I.A. Khan – Appellant
Versus
Manager Director, APSRTC – Respondent
WRIT PETITION No.15427 OF 2008



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: V.Narasimha Goud
For the Respondents: R.Anurag

In cases of wrongful termination, reinstatement with continuity of service and back wages is the normal rule, but the award of back wages is discretionary and contingent upon the specific facts, including whether the employee remained gainfully unemployed during the period of dismissal.

Headnote:(A) Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 - Section 11-A - Reinstatement - Back wages - Discretion in award of back wages - Where an employee is reinstated after wrongful termination, payment of full back wages is the normal rule, but this is subject to the employee not being gainfully employed during the interim period and the facts and circumstances of each case.

Facts of the case:
The petitioner was a Conductor in the respondent Corporation. Based on alleged ticket and cash irregularities, the petitioner was removed from service. The Labour Court set aside the removal order and directed reinstatement with full service benefits but denied back wages. The petitioner challenged the denial of back wages before this High Court.

Findings of Court:
The court noted that while there were lapses on the part of the petitioner, there was no financial loss to the Corporation, and the allegations were based on technical irregularities without examination of passengers during the inquiry. Considering the overall circumstances, the court directed the payment of 50% back wages.

Issues: Whether the denial of back wages by the Labour Court in the order of reinstatement was justified.

Ratio Decidendi: While reinstatement with full back wages is the normal rule for wrongful termination, the award of back wages remains a matter of judicial discretion depending on the specific facts, including whether the employee was gainfully employed and the nature of the misconduct.

Result: Petition partly allowed; respondent directed to pay 50% of back wages.

Table of Content
1. procedural history and factual background of the ticket irregularity charges. (Para 1 , 2 , 3)
2. summary of rival contentions regarding back wages and nature of misconduct. (Para 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11)
3. judicial discussion on entitlement to back wages and relevant case law precedents. (Para 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20)
4. court's final assessment of culpability and apportionment of partial back wages. (Para 21 , 22 , 23 , 24)

ORDER:

This writ petition is filed challenging the Award, dated 01.11.2007 passed in I.D.No.47 of 2005 by the Labour Court-I, Hyderabad, insofar as denying back wages to the petitioner.

2. Brief facts of the case are as follows :-

(a) The petitioner was appointed as a Conductor in the respondent Corporation on 31.12.1980 on regular basis. On 25.04.2004, while the petitioner was conducting bus bearing No.AP-9Z-8139 on route No.179-V, a check was exercised at Stage No.6, and the petitioner was found guilty of committing serious cash and ticket irregularities. Accordingly, a memo was issued to the petitioner alleging that he had issued five tickets of Rs.2/- denomination bearing Nos.087/7866611 to 087/7866615) to a batch of passengers on seeing the checking officials and that he was working without MTD-141 chart. The petitioner submitted an explanation to the said Memo alleging that the tickets were issued to the passengers in question at the boarding point and that the same was properly accounted in the SR, and the MTD-141 chart was not supplied by the depot as endorsed in the SR.

(b) Not satisfied with the explanation submitted by the petitioner, the 2nd respondent suspended the petitioner on 11.05.2004 and issued a charge-sheet framing the following charges:

“(i) "For having issued 5 tickets bearing Nos. 087/7866611 to 786615 of Rs.2/- denomination to a batch of 5 passengers found alighting with the above tickets at Stage No.6 i.e., Madhuban Colony, who boarded the bus at Stage No.5 le Katedan (ex. stages 05 to 06), but the above said tickets have been punched at Stage No.4 on sighting the checking officials. Further, it is found that the ticket bearing No. 087/786610 of Rs.2/- denomination has been punched at Stage No.5, which constitutes misconduct in terms of Reg. 28(x) & (xxxii) of APSRTC Employees (Conduct) Reg. 1963."

(ii)"For having found working without MTD-141 chart, which constitutes misconduct in terms of Reg. 28(xxxii) of APSRTC Employees (Conduct) Regulations, 1963."

(c) The petitioner submitted an explanation to the said charge-sheet denying the allegations levelled against him. Not satisfied with the said explanation, an enquiry was ordered. Basing on the enquiry report, the petitioner was removed from service vide proceedings dated 03.12.2004. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner filed I.D.No.47 of 2005 before the Labour Court and the Labour Court while setting aside the order of removal dated 03.12.2004 directed the respondent herein to reinstate the petitioner into service with continuity of service and all other attendant benefits, but without back wages.

(d) Aggrieved by the Award dated 01.11.2007 passed by the Labour Court insofar as not granting back wages, the petitioner filed the present writ petition.

3. The respondent filed counter affidavit stating as follows :-

(a) On 25.04.2004 while the petitioner was conducting bus service at stage No.6, a check was exercised by the TTIs and at that time, the petitioner was standing on the footboard and, upon seeing the checking officials, allegedly attempted to dispose of tickets improperly by throwing them to other passengers. The witnesses produced by the petitioner during the enquiry were non-genuine, as they could not be recognized by the checking officials, nor could they provide any evidence to prove that they have travelled in the bus in question on the relevant date.

(b) The ticketless passengers boarded at Stage No.5 and alighted at Stage No.6, but the tickets were punched at Stage No.4, whic

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top