THE HONBLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY AND THE HONBLE SRI JUSTICE A.V.SESHA SAI WRIT APPEAL No.1319 of 2006 18-12-2014 The Managing Director, APSRTC and another. .Appellants Sri G.Balaswamy and another..Respondents


WRIT APPEAL No.1319 of 2006  

The Managing Director, APSRTC and another. .Appellants  

Sri G.Balaswamy and another..Respondents  

Counsel for the appellants: Sri Dande Radhika

Counsel for respondents: G.P. for Labour &
                          Sri V.Narasimha Goud



? Cases referred:
1. 2004 SC (L&S) 83

WRIT APPEAL No.1319 of 2006  


        Feeling aggrieved by the dismissal of W.P.No.21598 of 2006,
the petitioners therein filed this writ appeal.
        The 1st respondent herein was working as a Mechnical
Supervisor with the appellants.  He was issued a charge sheet, dated
02.06.1995 alleging the act of misconduct of unauthorised absence.
After conducting departmental enquiry, the appellants removed the
1st respondent from service through order, dated 29.09.1995.  The
departmental appeal was rejected on 22.05.2000.
        The 1st respondent filed I.D.No.181 of 2000 before the Labour
Court-III, Hyderabad under Section 2-A(2) of the Industrial Disputes
Act, 1947 (for short the Act).  Through award, dated 13.03.2003,
the Labour Court has set aside the order of removal and directed
reinstatement into service with backwages from the date of removal
till the date of reinstatement.  The said award was published on
        The 1st respondent was reinstated into service on 10.08.2005.
Claiming that he was entitled to be paid backwages from the date of
expiry of 30 days from the date of publication of the award till the
date of reinstatement into service, the 1st respondent filed M.P.No.15
of 2005 before the Labour Court under Section 33(C)(2) of the Act.
It was pleaded that though he reported to duty, soon after the expiry
of 30 days from the date of publication of the award, the appellants
did not take him into service and on the other hand, they took the
plea that they did not receive the copy of the award; and he was
reinstated only on 10.08.2005.
        The appellants filed a counter affidavit in the M.P.  Their plea
was that the 1st respondent herein did not report to duty and it was
only in February 2005, he made a representation and on
04.08.2005, he got issued a notice through an Advocate and soon
thereafter, he was reinstated into service.
        The Labour Court allowed the M.P. through order, dated
02.06.2006 directing the appellants to pay backwages for a period of
two years aggregating to Rs.1,06,620/-.  The said order was
challenged by the appellants by filing the writ petition.  Learned
Single Judge dismissed the writ petition, taking note of the judgment
of the Honble Supreme Court in APSRTC vs. B.Vikram Reddy .
Hence, this writ appeal.
        Heard learned counsel for the appellants and learned counsel
for the respondents.
        The 1st respondent was removed from service on the ground of
misconduct.  However, the order of removal was set aside by the
Labour Court through its award in I.D.  The award became final and
the 1st respondent was also reinstated into service.  However,
claiming the backwages for the period between the date on which
the award became operational and the date on which he was
reinstated into service, the 1st respondent initiated proceedings under
Section 33(C)(2) of the Act.  The Labour Court allowed the
application by observing that there was no justification for the
appellants in not reinstating the 1st respondent into service.
        It is true that in Vikram Reddys case (1 supra), the Honble
Supreme Court held that an employer would be under obligation to
reinstate an employee into service, once the award is published and
became operational.  However, one sentence in that judgment
becomes relevant, which reads:
        In the absence of any material on record to show as to
why the corporation could not implement the award, the
respondent is justified in getting full wages from 21.6.1997 till
reinstatement is effected    

        An employee would no doubt get a right to be reinstated into
service on expiry of 30 days from the date of the publication of the
award, unless it is stayed by the Court of competent jurisdiction.
However, for reaping the benefit of the award, the employee must be
present.  It is not uncommon that on being removed or dismissed
from service, the workman would take up other employment or he
may be otherwise engaged.  It is only when he presents himself
before the employer, armed with the award, that a possibility would
exist for the employer to take him into service.  Verification of
physical condition and other job requirements is another aspect.  If
the employee himself does not turn up, for his own reasons, the
obligation for the employer to pay the wages under the award for the
period posterior to the award became operational does not arise.
          In the instant case, the first evidence of the respondent
appearing before the appellants claiming the benefit of reinstatement
is the representation dated 03.02.2005.    If there existed any other
evidence to show that the 1st respondent approached the appellants
on any date anterior to that, the obligation would commence from
that date.  Unfortunately, in this case, the Labour Court did not
record any finding as to when the 1st respondent approached the
appellants for reinstatement.  Strictly speaking, it is a matter for
remanding on that account.  However, it is brought to the notice of
this Court that the appellants have since paid the wages as directed
by the Labour Court in the order in the M.P.  If that be so, the
appellants shall not be entitled to recover them.  If on the other hand,
the amount was not paid, they shall not be under obligation to pay it.
        The writ appeal is accordingly disposed of, with the above
        The miscellaneous petition filed in this writ appeal shall also
stand disposed of.  There shall be no order as to costs.
Date: 18.12.2014


Popular posts from this blog

Article 54 of the Limitation Act, 1963 (36 of 1963) reads as follows: “For Specific performance of a contract: Three years The date fixed for the performance, or, if no such date is fixed, when the plaintiff has notice that performance is refused.”= the apex Court in Ahmmadsahb Abdul Mila vs. Bibijan[1], wherein it was held that the date fixed for the performance of the contract should be a specified date in the calendar, and submitted that since no specified date in the calendar for performance of the contract is mentioned in the agreement of sale, the second limb of Article 54 of the Limitation Act is applicable. ; whether the suit is barred by limitation or not becomes a tribal issue and when there is a tribal issue, the lower Court ought not to have rejected the plaint at the threshold. In view of the same, order, dated 27-01-2012, in CFR.No.90 of 2012, passed by the Additional Senior Civil Judge, Ongole, (FAC) Senior Civil Judge, Darsi, is, hereby, set aside. The Appeal is allowed accordingly.

Or.18, rule 17 and sec.151 C.P.C - petition filed for reopen and examination of the executant of Ex.A1 the sale deed to fill up the lacuna in evidence pointed out at the time of arguments not maintainable = Shaik Gousiya Begum. ..Petitioner Shaik Hussan and others.... Respondents = Published in

Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC. plaintiff has to prove his title and possession how he came into possession prima faice , in the absence of the same, not entitled for interim injunction = The questions as to whether the lease deed was properly stamped and whether the stamp paper on which it was typed can be said to have been procured through proper source, need to be dealt with at the stage of trial.; The suit filed by the 1st respondent, is the one for injunction simplicitor in respect of an item of immovable property. He has also filed an application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC. Basically, it was for the 1st respondent to establish that he is in possession and enjoyment of the property and that he derived the same through lawful means, particularly when he did not contend that he encroached upon the property.= assumptions of facts against to the contents of crucial third party by misreading the same- it is just un-understandable as to how the trial Court gathered the impression that Anuradha stated that there was a meeting of Board of Directors, where it was decided to lease the property to the appellants. - the trial Court itself was not clear as to whether the appellant is the lessee or a Manager or is working under any other arrangement. - The important findings that have a bearing upon the valuable rights of the parties cannot be based upon such uncertain and unverified facts. One of the cardinal principles in the matter of examining the applications filed under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC is that a party claiming that relief must come to the Court with clean hands. Prima facie, we find that there are no bona fides, much less consistency on the part of the 1st respondent, in his effort to get the order of temporary injunction. The trial Court has misread the evidence and misinterpreted the facts borne out by the record.