IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE TWENTY NINETH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 3608 of 2006 Between: The Dy. Chief Traffic Manager, APSRTC, Now re-designated as Divisional Manager, Cuddapah, Cuddapah District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 Sri M. Chandrasekhar Ex-Conductor, E. 61304, S/o. Anjeneyulu, D.No. 6/708-4, Sabjaraoyram, Cuddapah District. 2 The Industrial Tribunal cum Labour Court, Anantapur rep by its Presiding Officer .....RESPONDENT(S) Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to to issue an Order or Direction more particularly in the nature of writ of certiorari calling for the records relating to the award dated 23-7- 2005 in ID No. 17/2002 by the Labour Court, Anantapur and set aside the same, and to pass such other order or orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.P.VINAYAKA SWAMY Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR LABOUR The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 3608 of 2006 ORDER: This writ petition is filed against the award, dated 23.07.2005, in I.D.No.17 of 2002 on the file of the Labour Court, Anantapur. The deceased-1st respondent (for short ‘the employee’) was working as a Conductor in Pulivendula Depot of A.P.S.R.T.C. A charge sheet, dated 30.09.1999, was issued to him, alleging that he forged the warrants in the name of the Excise Department, to enable the constables and other officials to travel in the busses and that he has suppressed the fact that he was arrested and remanded to judicial custody on 09.09.1996 in connection with the case of forgery. After conducting departmental enquiry, the Depot Manger passed an order, dated 10.01.2001, removing the employee from service. After exhausting the departmental remedies, the employee filed I.D.No.17 of 2002 under Section 2-A (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Even while the departmental proceedings were in progress, the employee was tried in C.C.No.91 of 1999 for the offence of forgery. He was acquitted by the trial Court on 06.12.2004. Through the impugned award, the Labour Court had set aside the order of removal passed against the employee and directed his reinstatement with 50% of back wages, continuity of service and attendant benefits. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that both the charges framed against the employee were proved in the departmental enquiry beyond any pale of doubt and the Labour Court had interfered with the order of removal, on the basis of certain assumptions. She contends that though the allegation in charge No.2 was with reference to one warrant, during the course of enquiry, it emerged that the employee had forged 30 warrants. She contends that the Labour Court has taken hyper technical view of the matter and the award is unsustainable in law. Learned counsel for respondents 3 to 5, who were brought on record as legal representatives of the employee, on the other hand, submits that the Labour Court has clearly demonstrated as to how the charges framed against the employee were not proved. He contends that this Court cannot interfere with the findings of fact recorded by the Labour Court. The charges framed against the employee were somewhat grave in nature. It was alleged that he forged the warrants of the Excise Department and suppressed the factum of his having been arrested in connection with the said matter. It is a matter of record that the employee was arrested and was in remand for three days. There is nothing on record to disclose that the employee had informed the Depot Manager about the said arrest. The Labour Court appears to have been impressed by the fact that a group of conductors were arrested and all of them were, in fact, directed by the Chief Inspector to meet the Sub-Inspector of C.I.D, Kadapa. It can be presumed that the Depot manager or the officials of the Corporation were very much in the knowledge of the proceedings, leading to arrest of the employee and other conductors. Therefore, the finding of the Labour Court as regards charge No.1 cannot be found fault with. In the second charge, the allegation is that the employee forged a warrant. In the enquiry report, it was demonstrated that as many as 30 warrants were forged and all of them, though in the same serial, were entered by the employee at various points of time. This is one of the rare cases, where the Enquiry Officer had demonstrated objectively as to how the charge was proved. The Labour Court disturbed the same on hyper technical grounds. Before the writ petition was filed, the petitioner has reinstated the employee and thereafter, he passed away. Having regard to the totality of the circumstances, this Court is of the view that the award can be upheld, except to the extent of the back wages. Hence, the writ petition is partly allowed, setting aside the impugned award, to the extent it granted 50% back wages, and upholding the rest of it. There shall be no order as to costs. _________ 29.07.2008 JSU ..... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1.2CCs to 2.2CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WP{RLD} THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 3608 of 2006 Date: 29.07.2008 JSU