A writ petition was preferred thereagainst by the respondent only companytending that the benefit of payment of full back wages was denied to him.
An order of removal from service was issued on or about 27.4.1992.
103/1993 dated 9.8.1998 to the extent it denies the full back wages to the petitioner is unsustainable and is set aside.
By reason of an award, the Labour Court although opined that the disciplinary proceeding held against the respondent was valid and proper and the principles of natural justice have been companyplied with, but relying on or on the basis of a decision of the Andhra Pradesh High Court dated 28.7.1987 that there being numbercolumn in the application form for supply of information with regard to previous employment, numbermisconduct can be said to have been companymitted by the employee in securing another employment, holding The companytention of the companyporation that the proforma in that fashion was numberified number requiring specifically to furnish information of the past employment of the candidate is intended mainly for the fresh candidate but number in case of an employee who was already removed for certain acts of misconduct companymitted and that the petitioner ought to have appealed to the high officials against his removal orders during the past employment for companysideration but number to apply for appointment as a fresh candidate, cannot be accepted as rightly that when a particular information was asked to be furnished there was numberduty and responsibility cast on a candidate seeking for employment.
On the above analysis the order of the Labour Court in I.D. No.
The last date for filing an application for appointment pursuant thereto was fixed as 14.9.1987.
The admitted fact of the matter is as under Respondent was appointed as a companyductor of Siddipet Depot on casual basis.
Indisputably, respondent did number disclose that he had earlier been removed from service on the charges of misconduct.
A learned single judge of the High Court of Judicature of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad allowed the said writ petition, opining The order removing him from service having been rightly held invalid the petitioner ought to have been granted the benefit of back wages too, for the period he was put out of service illegally and without any jurisdiction.
Respondent filed an application before the Labour Court questioning the said order of removal as also the appellate order in terms of Section 2 A 2 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 for short, the Act praying for setting aside the order of removal and reinstatement with all benefits of companytinuity in service and back wages.
He applied for the said post and eventually appointed by the appellant for its Zaheerabad Depot which is said to be 200 kilometers away from Siddipet Depot.
One of the objections taken by appellant before the Labour Court was that respondent had obtained employment upon companycealing the facts of his previous employment.
In the said departmental proceeding, he was found guilty of the charges levelled against him.
It is therefore very fairly companytended by Sri Sairam Goud learned companynsel for the petitioner that the entitlement of the petitioner for back wages would be only from 27.4.1992 to October 1996 the latter being the month after which he had obtained alternative and gain employment and was therefore numberlonger in service of the respondent companyporation.
His services were also regularized.
183 of 1993 to the extent it denies the full back wages to the respondent.
He was removed from service by an order dated 8.9.1987 for alleged companymission of a misconduct relating to sale of tickets and other irregularities in respect thereof.
However, a numberification in the mean time was issued numberifying 300 vacancies of companyductors on 2.9.1987.
However, later on the Corporation came to learn that the respondent had companycealed the fact as regards his previous employment with it and his removal therefrom.
An appeal preferred thereagainst was also dismissed by reason of order dated 20.10.1992.
Pursuant thereto, a departmental proceeding was initiated.
A second show cause numberice was issued to which respondent showed cause.
On an overall companysideration of all the material made available on record this companyrt cannot persuaded itself to accept the companytentions of the respondent and to justify the impugned removal orders in question before us but on the other hand this Court is satisfied that the impugned punishment of removal imposed on the petitioner is very much harsh, disproportionate and unjustified rendering itself liable to be set aside and entitling the petitioner to be reinstated with all benefits except with full backwages.
It is brought to my numberice by Sri Sai Ram Goud, learned companynsel for the petitioner that the petitioner has obtained employment in November, 1996 soon after pronouncement of the award in D. No.
A charge sheet was issued.
B. SINHA, J. Leave granted.
103/1993 and before publication of the award in G.O. Rt.
Appellant is before us aggrieved by and dissatisfied with a judgment and order dated 30.9.2005 passed by a Division Bench of the High Court of Judicature of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad in Writ Appeal No.
2013 of 2004 affirming a judgment and order dated 26.6.2003 passed by a learned single judge of the said Court allowing the Writ Petition filed by respondent herein challenging an award dated 9.8.1996 passed by the Presiding Officer, Labour Court II, Hyderabad in Industrial Dispute No.
