THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE PULLA KARTHIK

ORDER:

Aggrieved by the award passed by the Labour Court-II, Hyderabad, (for short, ‘the Labour Court’) dated 25.02.2000 in I.D.No.113 of 1997, insofar as denial of back wages and other consequential benefits are concerned, the present Writ Petition was filed.

2. The case of the petitioner is that while he was discharging his duties as a Conductor on 10.01.1992, on route Dharsiri-Zaheerabad, a check was exercised at Stage No.5/4, and the petitioner was charged with cash and ticket irregularities. Subsequently, after the conduct of an enquiry, wherein, the charges leveled against him were proved, the petitioner was removed from service on 31.07.1992. Assailing the said removal order, the petitioner approached the Labour Court and raised an Industrial Dispute vide I.D.No.113 of 1997. The Labour Court, while allowing the I.D. in part vide award dated 25.02.2000, had set aside his removal order dated 31.07.1992 and directed the respondents to reinstate the petitioner into service as a fresh recruit, however, denied back wages, continuity of service and other consequential benefits. Hence, the present writ petition.

3. Heard Sri V. Narasimha Goud, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, and Sri U. Shanti Bhushan Rao, learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the Labour Court, having arrived at a conclusion that there was no mala fide intention on the part of the petitioner, and that the charges II and III were disproved, erred in ordering reinstatement as a fresh recruit, while it ought to have granted back wages and other consequential benefits. Therefore, the impugned award of the Labour Court dated 25.02.2000, in respect of denial of back wages and other consequential benefits is not only against the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, but also arbitrary and violative of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India. Further, the Labour Court ought not to have held the petitioner guilty of the allegation of violation of the ‘issue and start’ rule, as the tickets were already issued to the passengers in question and necessary entry was also made in the S.R. Hence, the findings of the Labour Court in this regard are perverse. Therefore, learned counsel for the petitioner prays this Court to pass necessary orders in the present writ petition.

5. On the other hand, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents submits that the petitioner, during the checking conducted on 23.01.1991, admitted in his spot explanation that six passengers were traveling in the bus without tickets, and that while he collected the fare and issued tickets to those passengers, the said check was conducted. However, since his explanation was found unsatisfactory, he was placed under put-off duty on 17.01.1992, and issued with a charge sheet. Thereafter, an enquiry was conducted, wherein, the charges leveled against the petitioner were held proved vide proceedings dated 12.05.1992. Consequently, he was removed from service vide order dated 31.07.1992. Challenging the said order, the petitioner approached the Labour Court and raised I.D.No.113 of 1997 after almost five years of his removal, for which, no reasons were assigned. However, the Labour Court was pleased to allow the I.D. in part, vide award dated 25.02.2000, directing the respondent to reinstate him into service as a fresh recruit, and had rightly denied back wages and other benefits. Thereafter, in compliance with the impugned award dated 25.02.2000, the petitioner was reinstated into service as a Conductor afresh, on 23.03.2002. It is contended that the petitioner, having voluntarily accepted the fresh reinstatement without any dispute, now cannot seek back wages and other benefits, which were rightly denied by the Labour Court. It is also submitted that during the pendency of the present writ petition, it has come to the knowledge of the authorities that the petitio