A. Balaiah Vs. Depot Manager, A.P.S.R.T.C
EmailAppeal: Civil Appeal Nos. 4909-4910 of 2000
(Arising out of SLP (C) Nos. 6760-61/1999)
(Arising out of SLP (C) Nos. 6760-61/1999)
Petitioner: A. Balaiah
Respondent: Depot Manager, A.P.S.R.T.C
Apeal: Civil Appeal Nos. 4909-4910 of 2000
(Arising out of SLP (C) Nos. 6760-61/1999)
(Arising out of SLP (C) Nos. 6760-61/1999)
Judges: S.P. BHARUCHA, V.N. KHARE & Y.K. SABHARWAL, JJ.
Date of Judgment: Apr 09, 2000
Head Note:
LABOUR AND INDUSTRIAL LAWS
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947
Workman – Dismissal – Reinstatement – Entitlement to back wages and continuity of service – Labour Court directing reinstatement of dismissed workman with continuity in service and 75 per cent back wages – Award challenged by employer – Division Bench affirming reinstatement but denying continuity of service and back wages – Whether High Court justified in denying continuity in service and back wages. Held, as the High Court had not given any reason for denying continuity in service and back wages and in the absence of explanation of the facts and circumstances relied upon by it, order not sustainable – Matter restored to High Court for fresh hearing and decision.
(Para 4)
JUDGEMENT:
ORDER
1. Delay condoned.
2. Leave granted.
3. These are appeals by a workman of the respondent. Having been removed from service, he moved for reinstatement before the Labour Court and the Labour Court directed the respondent to reinstate him with continuity of service, 75% of back wages and other attendant benefits. The award was challenged by the respondent before the High Court of Andhra Pradesh. A Division Bench of the High Court affirmed the award but it said, “However, having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, we think it just and proper to order reinstatement of the petitioner without continuity of service and without back wages.” The workman impugns the order of the High Court insofar as it modifies the award to deny him back wages (the High Court having taken the view in review that continuity of service should be ordered).
4. We find that the High Court has given no reasons for denying the workman the back wages that the Labour Court had awarded him. What the facts and circumstances of the case were, which the High Court relied upon, is not explained. We think in the circumstances, that the order of the High Court should be set aside and the writ petition (Writ Petition No. 1521/93) should be restored to the High Court to be heard and decided afresh, expeditiously.
5. Order on the appeals accordingly.
6. No order as to costs.
1. Delay condoned.
2. Leave granted.
3. These are appeals by a workman of the respondent. Having been removed from service, he moved for reinstatement before the Labour Court and the Labour Court directed the respondent to reinstate him with continuity of service, 75% of back wages and other attendant benefits. The award was challenged by the respondent before the High Court of Andhra Pradesh. A Division Bench of the High Court affirmed the award but it said, “However, having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, we think it just and proper to order reinstatement of the petitioner without continuity of service and without back wages.” The workman impugns the order of the High Court insofar as it modifies the award to deny him back wages (the High Court having taken the view in review that continuity of service should be ordered).
4. We find that the High Court has given no reasons for denying the workman the back wages that the Labour Court had awarded him. What the facts and circumstances of the case were, which the High Court relied upon, is not explained. We think in the circumstances, that the order of the High Court should be set aside and the writ petition (Writ Petition No. 1521/93) should be restored to the High Court to be heard and decided afresh, expeditiously.
5. Order on the appeals accordingly.
6. No order as to costs.
