THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION No.22807 of 2000 ORDER: The award of the Labour Court Godavarikhani, in I.D. No.310 of 1989 dated 06.02.1990, is under challenge in this Writ Petition. The petitioner, a conductor of the APSRTC, filed an application under Section 2-A(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act praying that the order of punishment of removal from service passed against him, by the respondent-management, be set aside and that he be reinstated into service along with monetary benefits including full back wages. Facts, in brief, are that the petitioner was appointed as a conductor on 26.07.1979. While he was conducting a bus travelling from Nirmal to Hyderabad a check was exercised at stage No.10 at about 10.15 hours by the checking officials and they found that the petitioner had collected Rs.2/- from four passengers who had boarded the bus at Kama Reddy (stage No.8), but had not issued tickets to them even by stage No.10, at which point the check took place. The Disciplinary proceedings instituted against the petitioner culminated in a punishment being imposed on the petitioner who, thereafter, invoked the jurisdiction of the Labour Court under Section 2-A(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act. Before the Labour Court, the petitioner filed a memo requesting the Labour Court to decide the matter under Section 11- A of the Industrial Disputes Act and, in as much as he did not dispute the validity of the domestic enquiry, the only question which the Labour Court was required to examine was as to whether the charges levelled against the petitioner were borne out by the evidence on record, and whether the punishment imposed on him was justified. The Labour Court records that, in their spot explanation, the passengers had stated that they had boarded the bus at Kamareddy and were alighting at Ramayanpet; they had paid Rs.8/- to the petitioner collectively at the place of boarding; the conductor had not given them tickets; and by the time of check at Ramayanpet, they were not having tickets. This statement of these four passengers was attested by the petitioner to the effect that the said statement was correct and was recorded in his presence. In his spot explanation the petitioner stated that the passengers had delayed paying the fare; they did not tell him to which place they were going; they had also not decided who among them would pay the fare; and by the time he took the fare, and was about to give the tickets, the check had taken place. The Labour Court then observed as under: “Admittedly the place of the boarding of these passengers is Kamareddy i.e., stage No.8 where as the check was exercised at stage No.10. Already one stage has passed. This is an express route bus. As to be seen from the check sheet and also the SR i.e., Ex.M-7 and M-1 respectively there were only 26+4 passengers in the bus. It is the bounden duty of the petitioner in express buses to issue the tickets, close the SR and then only start. But he has not done so. Even though stage 9 has passed he has not issued tickets even before the stage No.10 has come and passengers were alighting at stage No.10. Moreover he has closed the tray Nos. of all denominations upto Ramayanpet ie., stage No.10 without completing the ticket issues which clearly shows his malafide intention. The charges are amply proved. Moreover the petitioner has himself filed a memo into court to decide the matter under Section 11-A of the I.D Act which shows he is not disputing the correctness or validity of the domestic enquiry conducted against him. Under those circumstances, I am constrained to hold that there are no grounds much less justifiable grounds to interfere with the orders passed by the respondent-management against the petitioner. Moreover, there are no mitigating circumstances, or extenuating circumstances to mitigate the rigour of the grave charges framed and proved against him. Under those circumstances, and in view of the above discussion I hold that the petition is dismissed as there are no merits to interfere with the orders of removal passed by the respondent-management removing the petitioner from service. I decide points 1 and 2 accordingly and the award is passed as aforesaid.” It is evident from the afore-extracted portion of the award that the finding of guilt recorded by the Labour Court is on a proper analysis of the evidence on record, and the said finding neither suffers from perversity, nor can it be said to be based on no evidence. The Labour Court also records that there were no mitigating or extenuating circumstances to reduce the rigour of the gravemen of the charges framed and proved. While Sri K. Vasudeva Reddy, Learned Counsel for the petitioner, would contend that the finding recorded by the Labour Court is erroneous, and the statement made by the petitioner before the checking officials deserves acceptance, it must be borne in mind that this Court, while exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, does not sit in appeal over findings of fact recorded by the Labour Court/Tribunal nor would it substitute its views for that of the Tribunal. It is only if the order of the Tribunal, or the findings recorded by it, suffers from perversity or is based on no evidence would interference be called for. No such circumstances arise in the present case. With regards the punishment imposed, Learned Counsel for the petitioner, would submit that the punishment is grossly disproportionate to the charges held established. While the amount misappropriated of Rs.8/- may, indeed, be small, the fact remains that it is nonetheless an act of misappropriation, and the petitioner’s endeavour was not to issue tickets and to pocket the sum of Rs.8/- collected by him from the passengers. As held by the Supreme Court in State of Punjab v. Ramsingh Ex- constable[1] even a single act of corruption would justify a severe punishment being imposed. I see no reason, therefore, to interfere with the award of the Labour Court. The Writ Petition fails and is, accordingly, dismissed. However, in the circumstances, without costs. ____________________________ RAMESH RANGANATHAN,J Date: 21.10.2010 MRKR [1] AIR 1992 SC 2188 = 1992(4) SCC 54