NON REPORTABLE

   IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA    CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

   CIVIL APPEAL NO.3861 OF 2006

The Depot Manager, Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corpn. & Anr.       …Appellants.

Versus

V.Surender      … Respondent

    O R D E R

1. The  respondent  was  appointed  as  Cleaner  in  the

appellant-Corporation  in  the  year  1979.  In  1991,  he  was

unauthorisedly absent and there was no information to the

Corporation as to why he was not attending the duty. In this

view of the matter, the Corporation was constrained to issue

a charge sheet on 16th of May, 1991. In reply, the respondent

submitted a sickness certificate on 21.6.1991 to cover up his

absence.  Since  the  Corporation  was not  satisfied  with the

explanation offered by the respondent, an enquiry officer was

appointed  to  enquire  the  charges  levelled  against  the

1

respondent and basing on report of the enquiry officer, finally

the respondent was removed from service  on 24th of  April,

1991.  An  industrial  dispute  was  thereafter  raised  by  the

respondent against the said order of removal and finally the

Labour Court, Hyderabad by its Award dated 12th of March,

1997 held that the orders of removal for the misconduct was

harsh  and  disproportionate  and,  therefore,  could  not  be

sustained. The Award of the Labour Court was challenged by

the Corporation, which by the impugned order was affirmed.

However, the High Court by the impugned order directed the

Corporation  not  to  pay  25%  of  the  back  wages.  Feeling

aggrieved by the concurrent orders of the Labour Court as

well as the High Court, this SLP was filed which on grant of

leave was heard in the presence of the learned counsel for

the parties.

2. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties

and after going through the impugned orders, we are of the

view that the order of the High Court need not be interfered

with excepting that the payment of any back wages in the

facts and circumstances should not be directed to be paid to

2

the  respondent.  Accordingly,  we  dispose  of  this  appeal  by

modifying the award of the Labour Court and by holding that

the respondent is not entitled to any back wages from the

Corporation. It is made clear that if the respondent has not

yet been reinstated, he shall be reinstated within two months

from the date of supply of a copy of this order. The appeal is

thus disposed of with the aforesaid modification. There will

be no order as to costs.

………………… …..J.

[Tarun Chatterjee]

New Delhi; ………………… …..J. July 21, 2008. [Aftab Alam]

3

4