COMMON ORDER:

Both these Writ Petitions are filed to quash the Award dated 31.01.2009 in I.D. No.81 and 106 of 2007, respectively, and consequently direct the respondent No.1 to reinstate the petitioners into service with continuity of service and with full back wages.

2. Since the issue involved in both the Writ Petitions is one and the same, they are disposed of by way of this Common Order.

3. Heard Sri A. Sanjeev Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri N. Chandra Shekhar, learned Standing Counsel for TGSRTC, appearing for respondents.

4. For convenience, the facts stated in W.P.No.22743 of2010 are discussed as under:

4(i) Petitioner was appointed as a Cleaner in A.P.S.R.T.C. in the year 1980 on a regular basis. Subsequently, he was appointed as a Helper in 1999 in regular selections. At the relevant point of time, he was working as a Helper under the Administrative Control of the 1st respondent. On 11.7.2002, he was issued a charge sheet alleging misconduct and irregularities.

4(ii) Though five charges were framed against him, the sum and substance of the charge is that he had stolen the broken spring blades weighing about 390 kgs., from D.G.T. on 04.07.2002 along with its Driver while on duty and sold the same to outsiders and pocketed the revenue. He submitted his explanation denying the charges, but, without considering it, a regular enquiry was ordered. The enquiry was conducted, and the Enquiry Officer submitted his report holding that the charges against the petitioner are proved. The 1st respondent, who is the disciplinary authority, without considering the facts and circumstances of the case and solely on the basis of the said enquiry report, issued a show cause notice of removal from service on 24.12.2002.

4(iii) Again, the petitioner submitted a detailed explanation; however, the 1st respondent, without properly considering the same, issued orders dated 15.02.2003 removing him from the service of the Corporation. Aggrieved by the said order of removal from service, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the Divisional Manager, APSRTC, Khammam, which was rejected on16.06.2003.

4(iv) While the disciplinary proceedings were on, the corporation also filed a criminal case, registered as C.C.No.753/2002, in the file of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Mahabubabad, Warangal District. In the said criminal case, the petitioner was acquitted by judgment dated 05.02.2007. Therefore, he filed a review before the Regional Manager, APSRTC, Khammam, enclosing a copy of the judgment in the criminal case, and requested the authority to reinstate him into service. The reviewing authority also rejected the review by an order dated 09.04.2007.

4(v) Against the said order, the petitioner raised an industrial dispute vide I.D.No.106 of 2007 before the 2nd respondent and the 2nd respondent passed the Award dated 31.01.2009, directing reinstatement as Helper afresh, without awarding continuity of service back wages. Hence, the present Writ Petition.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Labour Court ought to have seen that the statements given by the workmen admitting the allegation was obtained under threat and coercion, as such ought not to have been relied upon while passing the Award.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the Labour Court ought to have seen that the D.G.T. vehicle was loaded with scrap broken spring blades at Badrachalam Depot, were weighed on old weigh bridge and they weighed at 390 kgs., and the other items such as fuel filled in the D.G.T. vehicle was not excluded and the weighing bridge at Karimnagar, where the goods were unloaded was an electronic one. Therefore, the quantity varied.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the labour court ought to have seen that after the goods were loaded at Badrachalam Depot, the bus door was locked and sealed and the concerned authority also signed on it and, as such, there was no scope for re