M. MUKUNDAM Vs. DIVISIONAL MANAGER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Award dtd. 28/8/2006 in I.D.No. 42 of 2005 on the file of Labour Court-I, Hyderabad is impugned in this Writ Petition.

(2.) Petitioner raised the above dispute to set aside the order of removal on the ground that it is unjust and illegal and seeking his reinstatement with continuity of service with full back wages and all other attendant benefits.

(3.) Learned counsel for petitioner Sri V. Narsimha Goud submits that the Labour Court having come to the conclusion that there was no tampering of record, ought not to have held the charges as proved. According to the learned counsel, the Labour Court opined that there were no mala fides and deliberate intention on his part in respect of charge No.1, hence, denial of back wages as well as notional increments and imposing deferment of two increments without cumulative effect is wrong. Petitioner was implicated in this case as a measure of victimisation for getting the service regularised through coercive method by filing E.P. No. 6 of 2001 and this fact the Labour Court failed to appreciate, complains the learned counsel. Since the date of removal to the date of reinstatement, petitioner remained unemployed, hence, learned counsel submits that his client is entitled to receive back wages and consequential benefits. Sri Goud places reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation v. Bhik Nath AIR 2005 SC 1571, wherein in paragraphs 6 and 10, it has been observed as under: