THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO W.P.NO. 30051 OF 1997 ORDER: This writ petition is directed against the award passed on 9.6.1994 by the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Anantapur in ID No. 17 of 1993. The writ petitioner was recruited as a conductor on 12.11.1986 with APSRTC, henceforth referred to as `corporation’. He claimed that he possessed a very good record of service all through. On 11.3.1992, he was conducting one of the buses of the corporation bearing Bus No. AEZ 1617 on the route Chittoor to Sarakallu. The said bus was subjected to a surprise check by the checking officials of the corporation between stages 6 and 7 and the checking officials allegedly found certain cash and ticket irregularities committed by the writ petitioner and hence they filed an adverse report against the petitioner. The petitioner was placed under suspension on 18.3.1992 and he was subjected to disciplinary enquiry by framing the following charges. “1. For having collected the requisite fare of Rs.1.50 each (totally Rs.9.00) from a batch of six passengers and failed to issue tickets to them who boarded your bus at Uppuvanka and found alighting at Patrapalle ex-stages 6 to 6/7, which constitutes misconduct under Reg.28(vi)(a) of APSRTC Employees (Conduct) Regulation, 1963. 2 . For having collected the requisite fare of Rs.1.75 each (totally Rs.5.25) from a batch of three passengers and failed to issue tickets to them who boarded your bus at Gajulapalle and bound for Sarakallu ex.stages 5/6 to 7, which constitutes misconduct under Regulation 28(xxxi) of APSRTC Employees’ (Conduct) Regulations, 1963. 3 . For having violated the rule `issue and start’ which constitutes mis-conduct under Regulation 28(xxxii) of APSRTC Employees (Conduct) Regulations, 1963. 4 . For having instigated a person to revolt against the checking officials and caused hindrance to the TTIs in discharging their duties, which constitutes misconduct under Reg. 28(xxxi) of APSRTC Employees’ (Conduct) Regulation 1963.” Since the writ petitioner has denied the allegations leveled against him through his explanation dated 25.3.1992, an Enquiry Officer was appointed to conduct the domestic enquiry. On 26.4.1992, Enquiry Officer submitted his detailed report holding the writ petitioner guilty of all the charges. A show-cause notice was issued to the writ petitioner on 8.7.1992 proposing to impose upon him the punishment of removal from service for the misconduct committed by him. Finding that there is no merit in the explanation offered by the writ petitioner on 20.7.1992, the 1st respondent – Depot Manager, Chittoor Depot, passed orders on 3.8.1992 imposing the punishment of removal from service. The appeal preferred there against was turned down by the 2nd respondent – Divisional Manager (Operations), Chittoor, on 21.10.1992. Since a further review is provided in the matter to the Regional Manager, he preferred a review which was walso turned down by the 3rd respondent on 22.12.1992. Hence, the writ petitioner – conductor/workman raised an industrial dispute questioning the punishment of illegal removal from service through ID No. 17 of 1992. The Labour Court has found the domestic enquiry to have been conducted in accordance with the procedure prescribed and in accordance with principles of natural justice and hence upheld the same. However, exercising the power available with regard to substituting the punishment commensurate to the proven misconduct, it has set aside the order of removal passed by the 1st respondent herein and directed to appoint the workman afresh as conductor. Since no other benefits have been accorded to the writ petitioner – workman this writ petition has been instituted. The respondents have contested this writ petition by filing a detailed counter affidavit in the matter. They have disputed the factum that the writ petitioner possessed a clean record of service. It was pointed out that prior to 1992, the writ petitioner has been imposed minor punishment of censure on four different occasions. He was also warned once and he was also cautioned once for certain cash and ticket irregularities indulged in by him. It was further contended by the corporation that at the time of surprise check undertaken on the bus, at about 19.55 hours on 11.3.1992, the checking officials have found cash and ticket irregularities committed by the writ petitioner – conductor. It is stated that the bus was operated between Chittoor to Sarakallu. The 1st stage is Chittoor and the 7th and last stage is Sarakallu. Stage No.5 is Aragonda. Stage No.6 is Uppuvanka. Between Stage No.5 and Stage No.6, there were four request stops viz., Gajulapalli, Boyapalli, Govindareddypalli, Cherlopalli. Similarly, between Stage Nos.6 and 7, there are two request stops at Basavalppagundla and Patrapalli villages. The writ petitioner has collected the requisite fare of Rs.1.75 ps from a batch of three passengers who boarded the bus at Gajulapalli to Sarakallu, but failed to issue them the tickets. Thus, he misappropriated the revenue of the corporation. Similarly, he has collected the requisite fare of Rs.1.50 ps from a batch of six passengers who boarded the bus at Uppuvanka, who were found alighting at Patrapalli when the bus was checked there. They were not issued tickets. Thus, he has misappropriated what should have been accounted for as revenue of the corporation. It is further alleged that the writ petitioner has not entered the complete details of the tickets in the statistical return (SR), but allowed the bus to proceed for the onward journey. When the checking officials were performing their duties, it is alleged that the writ petitioner has egged on one of the passengers by name Sudhakar Reddy to create an unpleasant situation so as to prevent the checking officials from discharging their functions. Hence, the checking officials were forced to lodge a complaint with the local police against the said Sudhakar Reddy. It is further submitted that the Labour Court has exercised its jurisdiction available under Section 11-A of the Industrial Disputes Act incorrectly, but still the corporation has reemployed the writ petitioner into service. I have heard Sri P.Veera Reddy, learned counsel for the writ petitioner and Sri A.V.Sivaiah, learned Standing Counsel for the respondent Corporation. It is contended by Sri Veera Reddy, that the Labour Court has grossly erred in its conclusion that the domestic enquiry was conducted fairly and properly and that the domestic enquiry officer has drawn correct conclusions on the basis of the material brought before him. It is contended by the learned counsel that two passengers viz., Smt.Yasoda and Sri V.Naidu have been examined by the writ petitioner on his behalf at the domestic enquiry and both the witnesses have deposed that they have not paid the requisite fare to the writ petitioner and the writ petitioner is not at fault in not issuing tickets to them. Inspite of such statements made by the two passengers during the course of domestic enquiry, the domestic tribunal has erroneously returned a finding of guilt against the petitioner. Therefore, the Labour Court ought to have interfered with the findings of the Enquiry Officer inasmuch as they are contrary to the material on record. It is further contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the charges 3 and 4 are purely technical in nature, content and scope and therefore for such charges, imposition of punishment of removal from service is grossly disproportionate. It was further contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the bus was heavily crowded carrying 110 passengers at the time of check and in those set of circumstances, the writ petitioner could not issue tickets to all the passengers in the bus as inspite of his request, nobody came forward for purchasing the tickets and hence he was under the impression that all passengers have purchased the tickets. Therefore, he has allowed the service to proceed further. It was further contended that the passengers in the bus keep assuring the conductors that their co-passengers who also board the bus would be buying tickets for them also. Therefore, in good faith, the conductors move about from one end of the bus to the other issuing tickets and at regular intervals keep asking all the passengers to make sure that they have purchased their tickets. When the check took place, according to the learned counsel, out of fear that a heavier amount of fine will have to be paid by them for traveling ticketless in the bus, the passengers resort to making false allegations that the conductor has failed to issue tickets to them inspite of collecting the fare. Therefore, the Enquiry Officer and the Disciplinary Authority ought to have been alive to the risk, which is faced by the conductors in such circumstances of being falsely implicated in this kind of charges. It is further contended by the learned counsel Sri Veera Reddy, that the Tribunal instead of setting aside the order of removal and granting all attendant and ancillary reliefs prayed for by the workman has merely ordered for his reinstatement and no reasons are assigned for denying the other benefits, particularly the backwages. There is no rule, according to learned counsel for the petitioner Sri P.Veera Reddy which required the conductors to complete the entries in the statistical return and then alone start the service of the bus and hence the allegation behind charge NO.3 ought not to have been construed as a misconduct on the part of the petitioner. It is further contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the procedure required to be followed while undertaking a surprise check of the bus service has not been followed in the instant case by the checking officials and hence the entire case must be considered as a false case set up against the writ petitioner. Per contra, the learned counsel for the Corporation would contend that the Corporation has issued mandatory instructions to be followed by its running staff from time to time in the form of circulars. One such instruction was that the conductors should issue all the tickets first and enter the data relating thereto in the statistical return and then start the bus service. It is contended by Sri Sivaiah that the main source of revenue for the corporation is the fare collected from the traveling passengers and the freight carried by the fleet of the corporation. If a part of the revenue earned by the corporation remains unaccounted for by its employees, the corporation will suffer very heavily. It is further contended that the writ petitioner could not have failed to notice that he has not issued tickets to as many as nine passengers between stages No.5 to stage No.7. Learned counsel submits that the bus was checked by the checking officials when its journey was almost drawing to a close, at stage No.7, Sarakallu. Therefore, the writ petitioner would not have failed to notice the fact that as many as nine passengers were not issued tickets by him. The writ petitioner has acted malafide and obviously appropriated the proceeds by collecting the requisite fare from the passengers, but failed to bring it to the account of the corporation by issuing appropriate tickets to them. Learned counsel submits that an enquiry was conducted strictly following the procedure prescribed under the Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation Employees (CCA) Regulations and the writ petitioner has been provided an opportunity to cross-examine Sri T.Palani, Travelling Ticket Inspector, who was examined before the Domestic Enquiry Officer on behalf of the Management and the writ petitioner was also permitted to let in evidence on his behalf. Therefore, there is no infirmity either procedurally or substantively committed by the domestic tribunal warranting interference. When the views of the domestic tribunal are reasonable, the finding recorded by it shall not be interfered with at all. It was also contended by the learned counsel that an extreme compassion has been shown by the Labour Court by ordering for the reinstatement of the writ petitoner. That itself is a great relief accorded to the writ petitioner and in the given circumstances, the writ petitioner ought to have been satisfied with the same. The question that falls for consideration is whether there was adequate material before the domestic tribunal to have recorded an adverse finding against the writ petitioner on the four counts of charges leveled against him by the corporation and consequently was the Labour Court justified in substituting the punishment to the one imposed by the disciplinary authority. It will be appropriate to notice that neither party has led any evidence either oral or documentary before the Labour Court. Therefore, the Labour Court was required to confine its scrutiny based upon the pleadings set up before it by both sides. It is not in dispute that the writ petitioner was conducting one of the buses of the corporation bearing AEZ 1617 on 11.3.1992 and that it was subjected to a surprise check at about 19.55 hours between stage No.6 and stage No.7 the last stage of destination of the journey viz., Sarakallu. The checking officials have found two sets of passengers traveling without tickets in the bus. A set of three passengers have boarded the bus at Gajulapally request stop at stage No.5. They were bound to travel up to Sarakallu stage No.7. It is alleged by them that they paid the requisite fare of Rs.1.75 ps to the writ petitioner – conductor. But, he failed to issue tickets to them. Another set of six passengers boarded the bus at Uppavanka stage No.6 and paid the requisite fare of Rs.1.50 ps to the conductor who failed to issue them the tickets, and the six passengers were found alighting at Patrapalli request stop which is just before Sarakallu. Therefore, the checking officials have recorded their statements which formed the basis for framing charges (1) and (2) against the writ petitioner – conductor by the disciplinary authority. As a natural corollary, since the conductor has not followed the instructions of the corporation to issue all the passengers the tickets and then only start the onward journey of the bus, charge No.3 followed. The checking officials have been obstructed in performing their duties by one M.Sudhakar Reddy, one of the passengers of the bus, who was allegedly egged on by the writ petitioner – conductor. Hence, charge No.4 was laid against the writ petitioner, as the checking officials have lodged a complaint against the said Sudhakar Reddy for obstructing the checking officials performing their duties. It is further not in dispute that one of the checking officials viz., T.Palani has been examined before the domestic tribunal on behalf of the management. He has faithfully reiterated the facts noticed at the time of checking the bus. He was subjected to cross-examination by the writ petitioner. Nothing has been obtained by way of contradiction from this witness. But, however, the writ petitioner examined two witnesses viz., Sri V.Naidu and Smt.Yasoda before the domestic tribunal. Both these passengers have resiled from their original statements made to the checking officials. They have deposed before the domestic tribunal that they made a false allegation against the writ petitioner – conductor out of fear that the checking officials might impose huge fine against them for traveling in the bus without tickets. In view of this contradictory statements made by the passengers, it becomes appropriate to notice as to how the conclusion that the writ petitioner is guilty of the charges has been drawn. At the very first instance, in his spot explanation, the writ petitioner has submitted that these passengers have boarded the bus at Gajulapalli and Uppuvanka villages but, however, they were sitting at different places in the bus and hence he could not notice whether they have purchased the tickets or not, though the passengers told him that one of them would be paying for the tickets. The writ petitioner has maintained that the bus was overcrowded carrying 110 passengers. These statements made by the writ petitioner were found contradictory in terms by the disciplinary authority. Possibly the bus may have carried 110 passengers in all on its journey from Chittoor to Sarakallu, some of whom may have alighted enroute as well. But, if there are 110 passengers in the bus at the time of check at Patrapalli village, which is hardly at a distance from Sarakallu, the final destination of the bus service, the scope for these passengers to be seated in the bus would not simply arise. Admittedly, the seating capacity of the bus is only 55 passengers. Therefore, the disciplinary authority has valid reasons not to subscribe to the viewpoint canvassed by the writ petitioner for his failure to issue them the tickets. The disciplinary authority has also pointed out that if the passengers of the bus were truly afraid of the prospects of being imposed fine for ticketless travel and hence implicated the conductor attributing failure to issue them the tickets, the same fear would have continued even when they appeared before the domestic tribunal. Therefore, the disciplinary authority had reason to believe that the writ petitioner had won them over and made them resile from their earlier statements. The views expressed by the disciplinary authority in this regard are not perverse views. They are possible in the facts and circumstances of the case. If two views are possible, and if one of them has been taken by the disciplinary authority, it would be difficult to characterize them as perverse views. Therefore, the Labour Court rightly, in my opinion, recorded its approval for the findings recorded against the writ petitioner insofar as charges 1 and 2 are concerned. When the material on record would help a reasonable body of men to arrive at one and only one conclusion, and if a contradictory conclusion is recorded by a disciplinary authority, then such findings can be characterized as perverse findings. However, when two views are possible, taking one of the views does not allow another view to be substituted to that of the disciplinary authority. I therefore do not find any justification for interfering with the findings of the Labour Court in this regard. Learned counsel for the writ petitioner is right in pointing out that there is no rule requiring the conductors of the corporation to issue tickets and then start the buses, a failure to do so to become a misconduct. However, it was not disputed that the corporation has issued standing instructions to the conductors to complete the process of issuing tickets at every stage where passengers board the buses and then alone allow the bus to proceed further. The conductors are also required to enter the data relating to the tickets sold, denomination wise in the statistical returns furnished to them. These instructions have been passed on by the corporation as a safety measure for preventing possible escape of its revenue. They are not unreasonable or matters, compliance of which is impossible. On the contrary, they are essential, for purposes of determining the bonafide conduct on the part of the conductors. Therefore, failure to adhere to such instructions issued by the corporation also amounts to misconduct. But, nonetheless, the courts have been consistently taking a lenient view in that regard and have characterized them as technical violations. In the absence of material to indicate that the conductor has not failed in his duty to issue tickets, mere violation of allowing the bus service to proceed further, perhaps can be treated as a technical violation. In the instant case, the finding was that the bus service has been allowed to commence its onward journey without the ticket being issued to all the passengers, though requisite fare was collected, which is no doubt a misconduct, however, technical it might be, committed by the writ petitioner-conductor. Learned counsel Sri Veera Reddy is right in his criticism that the 4th charge has been framed against the writ petitioner without any role played by him. There is no material for one to conclude that the passenger by name Sri Sudhakar Reddy has been asked by the writ petitioner – conductor to create tense moments against the ticket checking officials. The Labour Court has been vested with extraordinary powers. Normally, power of imposition of appropriate punishment against a servant is available only to the disciplinary authority. But, however, since the Industrial Disputes Act is intended to regulate the conditions of service of a large work force of employees, a majority of whom are employed under the private sector, it was considered appropriate to vest the Labour Courts/Industrial Tribunals with certain powers by way of substituting the appropriate punishment instead of the punishment imposed by the disciplinary authority concerned. While substituting the punishment, the Labour Court was required to carefully assess the extent of the misconduct held established against the workman and than choose the appropriate of the listed punishments. Unduly sympathetic consideration would be counter productive of discipline. It is highly essential that the work force shall also maintain the necessary standards of good conduct while being employed. Any failure on their part to maintain such approved standard of good conduct is bound to visit them with one punishment or the other. However, the Labour Court directed the writ petitioner to be appointed `afresh’. There is no such punishment listed in Regulation 8 of the Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation Employees (CCA) Regulations. However, what the Labour Court obviously meant was that the writ petitioner shall be reinstated back to duty without any benefits whatsoever. The writ petitioner has been removed from service as long back as on 3.8.1992. Pursuant to the award passed by the Labour Court, he has now been reinstated back to duty. If I were to set aside this award on the ground that the punishment chosen to be substituted by the Labour Court is not one of the punishments listed in CCA Regulations, and hence the Labour Court is required to reexamine the entire matter afresh, then the immediate fall out situation would be that the writ petitioner would have to be disengaged from service. That will cause a graver hardship to him. I therefore consider it appropriate to modify the award passed by the Labour Court with a view to put an end to the litigation between the parties. The award should now be read, as, “the order of removal dated 3.8.1992 passed by the Depot Manager, Chittoor Depot of Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation is set aside and the workman – conductor is ordered to be reinstated into service without any attendant benefits or continuity of service or backwages,” as it is well settled principle of law that award of backwages or attendant benefits is not an automatic affair to follow invariable upon ordering reinstatement into service of every workman. Excepting to the extent indicated supra, I do not find any merit in this writ petition and hence the writ petition is dismissed. No costs. --------------------------------- Nooty Ramamohana Rao, J knk 10th December 2009