HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT PETITION No.5601 of 2004 ORDER: In this writ petition, the Regional Manager, Ranga Reddy Region of the Andhra Pradesh Road Transport Corporation (for brevity ‘APSRTC’) challenges the award dated 09/06/2003 passed by the Industrial Tribunal-I, Hyderabad, in I.D.No.158 of 2000. The said industrial dispute arose on the reference made by the State Government under Section 10 (1) (d) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The terms of the reference were as hereunder: “Whether the Regional Manager, APSRTC, Ranga Reddy Region is justified in awarding punishment by appointing afresh duly dispensing with earlier service and from the date of suspension till he reports for duty shall be treated as period “Not on duty” for all purposes such as PF, Gratuity and other attendant benefits, against Sri M.Nagaiah, E.87767, Conductor.” M.Nagaiah, the Conductor, whose cause is espoused by the first respondent Union, was subjected to disciplinary action on the ground that he was involved in cash and ticket irregularities detected during the check conducted on 28/11/1992 while he was conducting the service between Hyderabad and Raichur. The disciplinary proceedings culminated in his removal from service vide order dated 06/05/1993. His appeal against the same was dismissed on 29/01/1994. However, upon his review application, the reviewing authority passed orders on 20/07/1994 directing that he should be appointed afresh, dispensing with his earlier services for all purposes such as PF, Gratuity and other attendant benefits. The first respondent union espoused the cause of M.Nagaiah, Conductor, in so far as the denial of his past services is concerned and accordingly, got the matter referred to the Industrial Tribunal-I, Hyderabad. By the award dated 09/06/2003, the Industrial Tribunal-I, Hyderabad, held that the APSRTC ought to have reinstated M.Nagaiah, Conductor, with continuity of service but without back wages. The Tribunal observed that the APSRTC was not justified in dispensing with the past services of M.Nagaiah, Conductor. Sri K.Madhava Reddy, learned Standing Counsel appearing for APSRTC, contended that it was not open to the Industrial Tribunal to re-appreciate the evidence and come to a contrary finding when the Conductor himself had not questioned the validity of the procedure followed in the domestic enquiry. However, Sri S.M.Subhan, learned counsel appearing for the first respondent union, submitted that the evidence on record clearly indicated that there was no fault on the part of the Conductor and accordingly, the finding that there was gross negligence on his part in performing his duties is clearly a perverse finding. It is relevant to note that Ex.M-11, which is the statement of one of the TTIs, who conducted the check, states to the effect that an argument was going on between the conductor and the head of the group of ticketless passengers with regard to the fare, by the time they entered the bus for the purpose of conducting a check. The TTI further stated that these passengers had not tendered ticket fare to the conductor and thereafter, even to the checking officials. The TTI also stated that one or two of the ticketless passengers seemed to be in a drunken condition and were armed with wood-cutters. It is pertinent to note that the checking took place during night time at about 9:20 PM. The TTI also stated that the ticketless passengers got off the bus at Raichur junction and brought the fare amount from a pan shop and tendered the same to the checking officials. In the light of the above stated facts brought on record through the statement of one of the TTIs who conducted the check, I find it difficult to understand as to how a finding of gross negligence can be sustained against the conductor. It is manifest that the conductor was arguing with the head of the group of ticketless passengers, who were armed with wood-cutters. It appears that it was only due to the presence of the checking officials that these ticketless passengers procured the ticket fare from a pan shop after getting off from the bus and then tendered the same to the checking officials. The finding that there was gross negligence on the part of the conductor is therefore unsustainable on facts and is completely perverse. In such circumstances, there is no error on the part of the Industrial Tribunal in interfering in the matter and granting the relief of continuity of service with all consequential benefits. It is relevant to note that the Industrial Tribunal deprived the Conductor of back wages on the principle of ‘No work no pay’. This adequately safeguarded the interest of the APSRTC. I see no reason to interfere with the award under challenge. The Writ Petition is accordingly dismissed. No costs. _________________ SANJAY KUMAR, J Date: 18-09-2009 SKM