HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED AND HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO WRIT APPEAL NO. 1045 OF 2010 Between: M. Bhujanga Rao ………….Appellant AND The Depot Manager, APSRTC, Hanamkonda, District Warangal ………….Respondent JUDGMENT: (Per Hon'ble Sri Justice Ghulam Mohammed) This Writ Appeal is directed against the judgment rendered by the learned Single Judge allowing the Writ Petition ﬁled by the respondent herein, by modifying that portion of the relief of payment of backwages awarded by the labour court in I.D. No. 230/95. The appellant was initially appointed as Casual Conductor with the APSRTC. He was regularised as a Conductor in December, 1990. On 22.9.1994 when the petitioner was conducting the bus in local service on route 76/2 of Thimmapur, the said bus was subjected to a check between stages 2 and 3 at Mills Colony Police Station and the Checking Oﬃcials have noticed certain cash and ticket irregularities. Pursuant to which, charges have been framed against the petitioner. In the domestic enquiry, the charges are held as proved. By an order of punishment dated 30.1.1995, the appellant was removed from service. Then the appellant raised an industrial dispute in I.D.No. 230 of 1995 in terms of Section 2-A(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act before the labour court. The Labour Court passed an award on 18.11.1999 ordering for reinstatement with continuity of service and backwages, by substituting the punishment of stoppage of one increment with cumulative eﬀect. It is on record that the appellant was still in the process of issuing tickets to the passengers though he has collected fare, he has not issued tickets to a batch of seven passengers. The Tribunal has noticed that there are 78 passengers in the bus and thus it was overcrowded. Till the entire exercise of issuing tickets is completed, buses cannot be stopped while plying on the city routs, as passengers will be creating lot of unrest, therefore, the appellant was in the process of issuing tickets to the passengers. In that view of the matter, the Labour Court ordered for reinstatement with continuity of service and backwages. However, it has imposed punishment of stoppage of annual grade increment with cumulative eﬀect which itself is a severe punishment. We have perused the record as well as the judgment rendered by the learned Single Judge. Further the appellant has also ﬁled a memo before us today stating that he would be satisﬁed if at least backwages are conﬁned to 50%. While granting or denying backwages, all the circumstances and facts are to be borne in mind. The learned Single Judge has not found fault speciﬁcally to the exercise of discretion by the Labour Court, in accordance with the Section 11(A) of Industrial Disputes Act. However, one fact which is not in dispute is that at the time of check there are at least 78 passengers in the bus and tickets were already issued to 70 passengers. With regard to 7 passengers, the explanation oﬀered by the appellant is that though they have tendered the fare but it is not an adequate fare, therefore, the passengers are being informed of the correct fare which they are required to pay. Hence, tickets were not yet issued to such passengers. Inspite of this explanation oﬀered on the spot, the ticket checking oﬃcials have recorded that the petitioner has collected the fare but has not issued tickets to the passengers. They have failed to verify the Correctness or otherwise of the spot explanation offered by the appellant. The explanation oﬀered by the appellant appears to be a plausible one. The passengers may have tendered the fare but if it is not the correct or adequate fare for their trip a conductor cannot issue tickets to such passengers to enable them to travel up to their destination. If such passengers are explained of the position, it does not amount to a misconduct on the part of the conductor in not issuing tickets for the fare tendered by such passengers. Perhaps, if the passenger is appraised that he has tendered less amount of fare, he might tender the correct fare or even opt to shorten the destination of his trip. In such a case, the conductor would issue tickets only upto a particular point or the passenger may choose to alight another destination than the original destination planned by him to suit the fare tendered by him. Therefore, there appears to be some bonaﬁde conduct on the part of the appellant in not issuing tickets to those seven passengers. This view of the matter has been completely ignored by the respondent- authorities. Hence, we consider it to be an appropriate case where the learned Single Judge should have conﬁned awarding of backwages to the extent of 50% while denying any additional monitory beneﬁts than the subsistence allowance from the date of suspension up to the date of removal on 30.1.1995. Hence, the order of the learned Single Judge is modiﬁed to the extent of awarding 50% of the backwages. The appellant is not entitled for any additional payment between the date of his suspension up to 30.1.1995. The arrears of backwages may be calculated and paid to the appellant within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Accordingly, the Writ Appeal is allowed in part. There shall be no order as to costs. ________________________ GHULAM MOHAMMED, J ________________________________ NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO, J DATE: 23.11.2011 KA ... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1. 2 CD copies.