THE HON'BLE SRI ANIL R. DAVE, THE CHIEF JUSTICE and THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT APPEAL No. 996 OF 2009 ORAL JUDGMENT: (Per Sri Anil R. Dave, CJ) Order dated 10-10-2007 passed in Writ petition No. 16737 of 2000 is the subject matter of this appeal. 2. The facts giving rise to the present litigation, in a nutshell, are as under: Respondent No.1 workman was working as a conductor and while he was conducting a bus on 11-01-1982, there was a surprise check and it was found that he had committed cash and ticket irregularities. In the circumstances, after following necessary procedure, his service was terminated and the order of termination was challenged by him in the Labour Court. As the appellant – employer did not appear before the Labour Court, there was an ex parte award which was challenged before this Court and upon remand, the Labour Court had directed his reinstatement with continuity of service and backwages. The said award was challenged by the respondent - workman in Writ Petition No. 16737 of 2000. After hearing the concerned advocates, the learned single Judge modified the award of the Labour Court to the effect that the respondent should be reinstated with continuity of service and attendant benefits, but only 50% of the backwages should be awarded. The said order passed in the writ petition has been challenged in this appeal by the employer APSRTC. 3. Upon hearing the learned advocates, we find that in fact, the respondent – conductor cannot be said to have committed a very serious irregularity because the passengers who had boarded the bus at stage 16 were checked at stage 17 and it was found that the said passengers had neither paid bus fare nor were issued tickets. The passengers had boarded the bus for stage 19 and as the respondent – conductor had sufficient time to issue tickets, the learned single Judge had taken a lenient view. More over, sufficent evidence was not addued by the appellant – corporation before the Labour Court to show that there was any malafide intention on the part of the resondent – conductor. No case with regard to misappropriation was made out. Considering these facts and the length of litigation, the learned single Judge modified the award, as stated herein above. 4. Upon hearing the learned advocate for the appellant, we do not find any reason to set aside the impugned order passed by the learned single Judge. It has been submitted by the learned advocate appearing for the appellant that the respondent should not have been reinstated with backwages because certain xerox copies of enquiry proceedings etc., had been produced before the Labour Court which have not been considered. 5. Be that as it may, the fact remains that no case with regard to misappropriation was made out and there was sufficient time for the respondent – conductor to issue the tickets had the check not been taken place at stage 17. 6. Looking to the above facts, we do not find any illegality or irregularity in the order passed by the learned single Judge. The appeal is therefore dismissed with no order as to costs. ANIL R. DAVE, CJ C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 3rd August, 2009 ks