THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE PULLA KARTHIK

ORDER:

Assailing the award passed by the Labour Court-III, Hyderabad, dated 01.11.2004 in I.D.No.83 of 2002, the present writ petition is filed.

2. Heard Sri R. Anurag, learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, and Ms. K. Udaya Sri, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that respondent No.2 was engaged as a Driver in the petitioner Depot and during his tenure as such, he was irregular to his duties. As such, he was removed from service due to unauthorized absence. However, he was later reinstated into service and was transferred from Mahabubnagar Depot to Narayanpet Depot on 03.06.1998 and was relieved from his duties at the petitioner Depot w.e.f., 04.07.1998. In spite of the same, respondent No.2 failed to join duty at Narayanpet Depot and remained absent unauthorisedly from 05.07.1998 to 07.08.2000. As such, he was issued with a charge sheet on 07.08.2000, framing three charges. In response, respondent No.2 submitted his explanation on 18.08.2000, which was found unconvincing. As such, an enquiry was conducted, wherein, the charges leveled against the petitioner were held proved. Thereafter, a show-cause notice was issued but no explanation was submitted by respondent No.2. Therefore, he was removed from service vide order dated 03.10.2000. However, without first availing the alternate remedy of appeal before the appellate authority, respondent No.2 raised an Industrial Dispute vide I.D.No.83 of 2002, which was allowed vide award dated 01.11.2004, setting aside the termination order, and the petitioner was directed to reinstate respondent No.2 into service, with continuity of service and 50% back wages, but without attendant benefits.

4. It is contended that the Labour Court, having held that respondent No.2 committed a mistake in not informing his whereabouts to the authorities, erred in interfering with the impugned punishment and also in granting 50% back wages. It is also contended that respondent No.2 failed to submit a leave application or a sick certificate for the period of his unauthorized absence. Thus, the Labour Court ought not to have awarded 50% back wages, that too, without assigning any reasons, and contrary to the ‘no work, no pay’ principle. Therefore, learned Standing Counsel for the petitioner prays this Court to allow the present writ petition by setting aside the impugned award dated 01.11.2004 in I.D.No.83 of 2002.

5. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent No.2 submits that the petitioner fell sick on 18.03.1998 and was admitted in the respondent Hospital at Mahabubnagar. Later, since there was no improvement, he was referred to the respondent Hospital at Tarnaka vide letter dated 19.03.1998, wherein, he was treated for Bronchitis and was discharged on 09.04.1998. However, respondent No.2 continued feeling unwell, and thus, he had undergone treatment at Government Hospital, Mahabubnagar, until 24.05.2000. Respondent No.2 also submitted medical certificates to the petitioner, to show his illness. Therefore, considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the evidence on record, the Labour Court has rightly passed the impugned award dated 01.11.2004 in I.D.No.83 of 2002, setting aside his termination and directing reinstatement, along with continuity of service and 50% back wages. It is submitted that in compliance with the award of the Labour Court dated 01.11.2004 in I.D.No.83 of 2002, the petitioner had already reinstated respondent No.2 into service on 31.03.2005, and he had joined duty at Narayanpet Depot on the 31.03.2005 itself. However, the petitioner has not yet paid the back wages. Therefore, it is prayed to dismiss the present writ petition, with appropriate directions to the petitioner to pay the back wages to respondent No.2.

6. This Court has taken note of the rival submissions/contentions urged by the respective parties.

7. A perusal of record discloses that in