A MANNAN Vs. APSETC

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Both the writ petitions are disposed of through this common order. When the employee was removed from service by APSRTC after due enquiry, the employee raised I.D. No. 53 of 2002 before the Labour Court-Ill, Hyderabad. The labour Court passed an Award on 26-05-2004 finding the employee not guilty of the charge levelled against him and ordered reinstatement of the petitioner with continuity of service and back wages but without attendant benefits. Aggrieved by the Award of not granting attendant benefits, the employee preferred W.P. No. 13899 of 2004. Assailing the Award regarding reinstatement and back wages, the APSRTC preferred W.P. No. 106 of 2005. As both the writ petitions arise from the Award in I.D. No. 53 of 2002, both the writ petitions are disposed of through this common order. The parties are referred to as they are arrayed in W.P. No. 13899 of 2004. The petitioner joined the services of the respondents 1 & 2 as a Driver on 01-02-1985, On 24-02-2001, there was an altercation between the petitioner and a passenger by name N. Lingaiah while the petitioner was driving a bus leading to the petitioner slapping N. Lingaiah with a slipper, according to the allegations of the respondents 1 & 2. It would appear that N. Lingaiah lodged a police complaint against the petitioner. Consequently, a domestic enquiry was conducted regarding the alleged assault of the passenger while the petitioner was the driver of the bus. The petitioner was found guilty of the charge. The petitioner was removed from service through orders dated 07-05-2002. Questioning the same, the petitioner raised I.D. No. 53 of 2002 before the Labour Court-III (the 3rd respondent). As already pointed out that, the 3rd respondent ordered reinstatement with continuity of service, back Wages, but without attendant benefits. Hence, the two writ petitions.

(2.) Sri S.M. Subhan, learned counsel representing the petitioner submitted that the 3rd respondent considered that the charge has not been proved so much so the 3rd respondent ought to have ordered grant of attendant benefits also. He submitted that the petitioner be granted attendant benefits also apart from reinstatement, continuity of service and back wages.

(3.) Sri H. Venugopal, learned Standing Counsel for the respondents 1 & 2 on the other hand contended that the 3rd respondent has not properly reappreciated the evidence and that in fact the charge against the petitioner has been proved. He submitted that the order of reinstatement, continuity of service and back wages by the 3rd respondent is unjust and that the order of removal deserves to be upheld.