SHAIK HUSSAIN Vs. VICE CHAIRMAN AND MANAGING DIRECTOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner was employed as a Conductor in the Nizamabad Depot of APSRTC. He was removed from service on 31.10.1983, on the allegation that he did not issue tickets to as many as 37 passengers. Challenging the same, the petitioner raised an Industrial Dispute, being I.D.No.316 of 1983, in the Additional Industrial Tribunal-cum-Additional Labour Court, Hyderabad. The Labour Court upheld the order of removal, on 10.07.1986. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner filed W.P.No.6514 of 1988. The Writ Petition was allowed by this Court through order, dated 06.09.1991, directing reinstatement of the petitioner. Back wages were denied to him. The petitioner filed W.A.No.1431 of 1996, insofar as the learned Single Judge did not grant the relief of payment of back wages. The Writ Appeal was dismissed by a Division bench of this Court on 12.12.1996. However, an observation was made to the effect that the petitioner can make a representation, to the appointing authority, claiming back wages, and directing that the same shall be considered, in accordance with law.

(2.) The petitioner made a representation on 21.4.1997 to the 2nd respondent claiming back wages. When no action has been taken thereon, he made a further representation, dated 15.04.2005. On a consideration of the same, the 2nd respondent issued proceedings, dated 26.04.2005, rejecting the claim of the petitioner. The same is challenged in this Writ Petition.

(3.) Sri S.Ravindranath, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Division Bench of this Court specifically permitted the petitioner to make a representation, to the respondents, claiming back wages, and in that view of the matter, it was obligatory on the part of the 2nd respondent, to have awarded back wages to the petitioner, once the order of dismissal was set aside by this Court in the Writ Petition. He contends that the reasons assigned by the 2nd respondent are not tenable.