GRANTED ALL SERVICE BENEFITS EXCEPT HALF THE BACK WAGES BY SETTING-ASIDE THE REMOVAL ORDER OF APSRTC.

The petitioner was a Driver in the Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation (APSRTC) and unauthorized absent from duty on different spells. During two spells, one spell he was admitted in government he had taken treatment for hypertension and hear disease and the same, he had sent intimation through his neighbour, his neighbour did not intimate the first respondent-apsrtc. Secondly spell, again he admitted in hospital as he was suffering from jaundice. Thereafter he was allowed to join duty and issued charge sheet dt. 29-8-1991, alleging that the petitioner was un-authorisedly absent from 3-8-1991 to 29-1991 without intimation or prior sanction of leave, which is a mis-conduct as per the regulations of APSRTC. An E.O. was appointed and conducted an enquiry for first charge but not conducted second charge. Ultimately an order of removal of the petitioner from service passed. The said order was challenged before the Industrial Tribunal. The petitioner was un-authorisedly absent that the domestic enquiry was not initiated and that the charges have been proved. An award was passed under section 11 of the I.D.Act. by the Tribunal and directed the first respondent to reinstate the petitioner into service as a fresh candidate as Driver without continuity of service and attendant benefits. Quashing the award of the labour Court he filed a W.P. before the Hon’ble High court to call for records relating to the I.D. A reading of the entire material given an impression that an impression that it is a fact that the petitioner was admitted in government hospital from the said dates and to that effect he submitted medical certificates also. It is clear that he was unable to report the matter to the concerned authority and the was failed to note the court below and when he is unable to move from the bed and when there is not evident to show that there are other family members who are fit to report the matter to authorities for non intimation about the admission in hospital by an employee at the time of his admission can not be treated as a grave misconduct and for treat simple mistake, denying the continuity of service and the entire back wages amount to gross disproportionate to the proved misconduct. Therefore the award requires to be modified as prayed for by the petitioner. Of course, taking into consideration the mistake committed by the petitioner in not intimating to the first respondent ultimately the High Court consider it just and reasonable to held that impugned award to the extent of holding that the petitioner in not entitled to continuity of service and full back wages is set aside and the award stands modified as follows. The petitioner shall be reinstated into service with continuity of service, but in the circumstances, half of the back wages and all other attendant benefits.