MANAGING DIRECTOR Vs. B NARASIMHULU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These two Writ Appeals involve a similar and identical issue and hence, they are being disposed of by this common judgment. Writ Appeal No. 437 of 2010 is preferred by the Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation ('APSRTC' for brevity) assailing the order dated 19.04.2010 passed in Writ Petition No. 22254 of 2006 whereby a learned single Judge of this Court while setting aside the award of the Labour Court dated 17.5.2006 made in I.D. No. 50 of 2004 directed reinstatement of the respondent-workman in service without continuity of service and back wages; whereas, Writ Appeal No. 646 of 2010 is preferred by the workman being aggrieved to the extent of not granting continuity of service and back wages.

(2.) The workman, who is the appellant in Writ Appeal No. 646 of 2010 was appointed as a Conductor in the APSRTC. While so, he was charge-sheeted on account of the alleged 'ticket and cash' irregularities when he was operating the bus service on 24.2.2003 on the route 'Zaheerabad to Kakkaravad'. After conducting a regular departmental enquiry, he was removed from service. Aggrieved thereby, he moved the Labour Court by raising I.D. No. 50 of 2004 which ended in dismissal. Thereupon, he approached this Court by filing Writ Petition No. 22254 of 2006 which was partly allowed through the order under appeal as afore-stated. Being aggrieved by the grant of reinstatement of the workman in service, the APSRTC preferred W.A. No. 437 of 2010, whereas having been aggrieved by the denial of back wages and continuity of service, the workman preferred W.A. No. 646 of 2010.

(3.) The learned Standing Counsel for the APSRTC contended that inasmuch as disciplinary authority of APSRTC and Labour Court found that the workman was responsible for the alleged misconduct, the learned Single Judge should not have interfered with such findings, but shown some lenience towards the workman and ordered his reinstatement in service, which is contrary to the well settled principles of law. He pointed out that the charges levelled against the workman were proved beyond any doubt, and in fact, they were very serious in nature, and thereby the APSRTC has lost its total credibility and confidence in the workman, and as such, he has lost his legitimate right to continue in service any more. He therefore, prayed that Writ Appeal No. 437 of 2010 may be allowed duly dismissing Writ Appeal No. 646 of 2010 preferred by the workman.