THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU W.P.No.17808 of 2005 ORAL ORDER: This writ petition is filed seeking a Certiorari to call for the records relating to I.D.No.33 of 2002 dated 19.8.2002 on the file of the learned Chairman, Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Godavarikhani and set aside the same and consequently direct the respondents to reinstate the petitioner into service with full back wages, continuity of service and all other attendant benefits. It appears, petitioner was appointed as Conductor in the Respondent Corporation in the year 1985. While that being so, since he was involved in cash and ticket irregularities, a charge sheet was issued to him with the following charges: “1. For having violated the rule ‘Issue and Start’ which is a misconduct in terms of Regulation 28(xxxii) of APSRTC Employees (Conduct) Regulation 1963. 2. For having collected the requisite fare from the batch of 3 passengers @ Rs.216/- from each passenger at the boarding point itself, who boarded your bus at Shirdi and bound for Nirmal ex-stages 45 to 13, but whereas you have issued lower denomination ticket NO.077/936905 to 077/936910 of Rs.50/- denomination, E.6, 252/437990 to 252/437992 of Rs.10/- denomination, E.3 and 386/181032 to 386/181034 of Rs.6/- denomination E.3 to the 3 passengers @ Rs.116/- to each passenger, which is misconduct in terms of Reg. 28 (vi- a), (xxxii) and (xxv) of APSRTC Employees (Conduct) Reg. 1963. 3. For having closed the S.R. not completing the ticket issues and not issued exact requisite fare to the batch of 3 passengers, which is misconduct in terms of Reg. 28 (xxv) of APSRTC Employees (Conduct) Reg. 1963”. After completing all the formalities, petitioner was removed from service by order dated 25.4.2000. Aggrieved by the same, he filed appeal and revision and both were dismissed. Having left with no other option, petitioner raised Industrial Dispute before the Labour Court under Section 2-A(2) of the I.D. Act. Before the Labour Court, it was the case of the petitioner that the enquiry was not properly conducted and the punishment of removal from service for a trivial misconduct alleged against him even if it is proved, is arbitrary and illegal. The respondent-management filed a detailed counter denying the allegations made by the petitioner and stated that the past conduct of the petitioner was not good, therefore he does not deserve any sympathy to be shown. Before the Labour Court, none were examined on either side and no documents were marked on behalf of workman, however on behalf of management, Exs.M1 to M37 were marked. After a detailed consideration of oral and documentary evidence, the Labour Court came to the conclusion that the enquiry conducted was just, valid and proper and insofar as merits of the case are concerned, the Labour Court held that there is any amount of evidence to show that the petitioner was involved in grave misconduct and thus, he does not deserve any relief to be granted. In this connection, the Labour Court held as under: “This is not a fit case for exercising discretion U/s.11- A of the Industrial Disputes Act. The chares are grave in nature. The petitioner collected Rs.216/- each from three passengers, but issued Rs.116/- each worth tickets to them. Thus, the petitioner pocketed Rs.300/- as unlawful gain. If there was no check, it would be a heavy loss to the Corporation. Check would be conducted once in a time and therefore, it cannot be taken that it is only Rs.300/- that the petitioner pocketed as unlawful gain. There cannot be checks every day. Therefore, when a serious charge of cash and ticket irregularities is found, it cannot be viewed lightly. If this type of malpractices is not curtailed, the very existence of the Corporation would be a question mark”. and ultimately dismissed the claim petition filed by the petitioner. Aggrieved by the same, the present writ petition is filed. The learned counsel for petitioner strenuously contended that the petitioner had put in 15 years of clean service and the charges, as noticed above, are neither grave in nature, nor they were proved in full. Therefore, removal order passed by the disciplinary authority as confirmed by the appellate authority and further confirmed by the Labour Court is liable to be set aside. In the counter filed by the respondents, it is stated that the past conduct of the petitioner was not good. He was censured once and his annual grade increments were deferred for three times, therefore, petitioner does not deserve any lenience to be shown. I have given my earnest consideration to the respective submissions made by the learned counsel on either side and perused the impugned award and other material made available on record. The Labour Court has rightly held that the enquiry conducted was just, proper and valid and also further held that the charges are grave in nature, but however, since the petitioner had put in 15 years of service, the Labour Court ought not to have dismissed the whole application without properly exercising the discretion vested in it under Section 11-A of the I.D. Act as noticed above. In a case of this nature, removal from service is shockingly disproportionate to that of the misconduct alleged. Therefore, the Labour Court ought to have granted some relief of reinstatement with continuity of service, but without any back wages and without any attendant benefits while exercising powers under Section 11-A of the I.D. Act. For the foregoing reasons, the award passed by the Labour Court is modified to be read as under: “The respondent-management is directed to reinstate the petitioner into service as Conductor with continuity of service, but without any back wages and without any attendant benefits. However, the period from the date of removal till the date of reinstatement shall be counted only for the purpose of retiral benefits.” The writ petition is accordingly allowed. No order as to costs. ______________ C.V.RAMULU, J Date: 7.2.2011 DA THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU W.P.No.17808 of 2005 7.2.2011 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU W.P.No.17808 of 2005 Date: 7th February, 2011 Between: V.Devadatha Prasada Rao .. Petitioner And The Depot Manager, Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation, Mancherial Depot, Mancherial, Adilabad district and another. .. Respondents