Reinstatement by a Labour Court in exercise of Section 11-A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, due to a modification of punishment for proven misconduct, does not automatically entitle the employee to back wages or attendant benefits as a matter of course.

O R D E R:

The petitioner has filed this Writ Petition, aggrieved by the impugned Award dated 07.11.2012 passed by the Labour Court, insofar as denying the attendant benefits and back wages and sought direction to the respondents to extend the benefits of attendant benefits and back wages along with all other consequential benefits.

02. Heard Sri V. Narasimha Goud, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri N.S.V. Janaki, learned counsel, representing Sri R. Anurag, learned Standing Counsel for the Telangana State Road Transport Corporation and perused the record.

03. The petitioner joined the service of RTC as a Conductor in the year 1987, and his services were regularized in the year 1989. He was removed from service by order dated 10.08.2005. On 22.08.2004 while he was conducting bus service on Route No.454 from Botiguda to Afzalgunj, a check was exercised by the checking officials in between stage No.18 and 17 i.e. near Malkaram and found all the passengers with the valid tickets. However, the checking officials detected that the tickets bearing No.039/462914 to 917 of Rs.8/- denomination, which found with the passengers, were not accounted in the SR. It was alleged that the petitioner intentionally avoided to account the said tickets or failed to show the sale of the said tickets in his SR, to collect back the said tickets and to issue to other passenger and to make unlawful gain.

04. After conducting an inquiry, the petitioner was removed from service. The appeal and revision preferred by him were also rejected. Aggrieved thereby, he approached the Labour Court. Upon consideration of the matter, the Labour Court ordered reinstatement of the petitioner with continuity of service, however, denied attendant benefits and back wages. Aggrieved by the denial of attendant benefits and back wages and seeking all consequential benefits, the petitioner has approached this Court.

05. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that due to family worries and disturbed statement of mind a clerical mistake was occurred while closing the SR but not otherwise and there is no fraudulent intention. During the course of the inquiry, the Labour Court ought to have appreciated that the very initiation of disciplinary proceedings is unwarranted as the mistake was crept in while closing the SR due to clerical mistake and that the tickets in question were correctly punched and which were in possession of the passengers at the time of checking. The charges levelled against the petitioner are based on flimsy grounds. It is also contended that the Labour Court, without appreciating the evidence on record in its proper perspective, denied attendant charges and back wages while ordering reinstatement and continuity of service. Accordingly, the petitioner prays that this Court may allow the writ petition by granting attendant charges and back wages with all consequential benefits. He relied upon a decision in the case of Deepali Gundu Surwase v. Kranti Junior Adhyapak Mahavidyalaya (D.Ed.) and others¹MANU/SC/0942/2013 the Hon’ble Supreme Court at Paragraph No.33 held that:

“33. The propositions which can be culled out from the aforementioned judgments are:

i) In cases of wrongful termination of service, reinstatement with continuity of service and back wages is the normal rule.

ii) The aforesaid rule is subject to the rider that while deciding the issue of back wages, the adjudicating authority or the Court may take into consideration the length of service of the employee/workman, the nature of misconduct, if any, found proved against the employee/workman, the financial condition of the employer and similar other factors.

iii) Ordinarily, an employee or workman whose services are terminated and who is desirous of getting back wages is required to either plead or at least ma