K. GANGADHAR Vs. APSRTC

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant herein is the petitioner in W.P. No. 3084 of 2005. He was engaged as a daily wage conductor in the year 1988. On the ground that he had committed certain acts of mis-conduct, he was removed from service questioning which he approached the Labour Court, Godavarikhani under Sec. 2-A (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act in I.D. No. 266 of 1990.

(2.) By its award, in I.D. No. 266 of 1990 dated 4.10.1991, the Labour Court held that there was some dereliction of duty on the part of the appellant-petitioner, but there was no mala fide intention on his part; the punishment was disproportionate; and, therefore, denial of back wages and denial of all other benefits would be sufficient punishment for the petitioner, but not the extreme punishment of removal from service. The order of removal, passed by the respondent-management with effect from 15.12.1989, was set aside; and the appellant-writ petitioner was directed to be reinstated into service with continuity of service, but without any other attendant benefits and without any back wages. The Labour Court further held that the appellant-writ petitioner was entitled to salary from the date of expiry of thirty days from the date of publication of the award. The award was published on 18.12.1991 and the thirty day period after publication expired on 17.1.1992.

(3.) The services of the appellant were regularized as a Conductor with effect from 1.8.1994. On the ground that the services of his juniors were regularized with effect from 20.3.1991, whereas his services were regularized only from 1.8.1994, the appellant filed the present writ petition in the year 2005. By the order under appeal, the learned Single Judge, taking note of the fact that the writ petition was filed belatedly,directed the petitioner's services to be regularized with effect from 20.3.1991 instead of from 1.8.1994, but made it clear that this benefit of regularization, with retrospective effect, should be taken into consideration only for the purpose of seniority but not for any other benefits, because, though the cause of action arose in the year 1994, the writ petition was filed in the year 2005. Aggrieved thereby, the present appeal.