IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 8037 of 2008 Between: B. Yesu S/o Somla APSRTC., Sathupally depot, Khammam District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The APSRTC., rep byits Vice Chairman & Managing Director, at Musheerabad, Hydeabad. 2 The APSRTC., rep by its Depot Manager, Bhadrachalam Depot, Khammam District. 3 The Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Warangal, rep by the Government, Labour Department. .....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 issue an appropriate writ, order or direction, more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, modifying the impugned award passed bythe 3rd respondent in I.D. No. 149 of 2003 dated 01-11-2006 while accordign the petitioner continuity of service, back wages, and other attendant benefits as usual and pass such other order or orders as are deemed fit and proper inthe inteest of justice. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.G.LNARASIMHA RAO & ASSOCIATES Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR LABOUR The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 8037 of 2008 ORDER: The petitioner is working as a Conductor and at present, he is posted at Sathupally Depot of A.P.S.R.T.C. He was issued a charge sheet, dated 22.09.2001, on the basis of a report, dated 19.09.2001, received from Yellandu Police Station. It was pointed out that during the course of duties, between 23rd and 30th of August 2001, the petitioner had interpolated and fabricated the police warrants, as regards the number of persons, who traveled on them. The petitioner submitted his explanation and not being satisfied with it, the Depot Manager, Bhadrachalam Depot, 2nd respondent herein, directed departmental enquiry. The charges leveled against the petitioner were held proved and the 2nd respondent passed an order, dated 15.04.2002, removing the petitioner from service. After he had exhausted the departmental remedies, against the order of removal, the petitioner approached the Labour Court, Warangal, by filing I.D.No.149 of 2003 under Section 2-A (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Through its award, dated 01.11.2006, the Labour Court had set aside the order of removal, but directed reinstatement of the petitioner as fresh conductor, without continuity of service, back wages and attendant benefits. The petitioner challenges the award, insofar as it denied the continuity of service, back wages and attendant benefits. Sri G.L.Narasimha Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that no cash and ticket irregularities were noticed against the petitioner and the interpolation in the warrants cannot be attributed to his client. He further submits that though the Labour Court was satisfied about the innocence of the petitioner, it had denied the benefit of service of almost quarter of a century and it cannot be sustained in law. Smt P.Rajini Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, submits that the Labour Court ought to have dismissed the I.D., having regard to the gravity of the charges framed and proved against the petitioner as well as his past conduct. The charges, that were farmed against the petitioner, are somewhat typical. Normally, one would not come across such type of charges against Conductors. It was alleged that on 23.08.2001, the petitioner had handed over a warrant in the Depot, showing that 8 persons travelled on it from Hyderabad to Kothagudem and the value of that tickets is Rs.1,128/-. Similarly, on 30.08.2001, he handed over a warrant for a value of Rs.1,134/- stating that 7 persons traveled on it from Hyderabd to Bhadrachalam. Details of the tickets together with the denominations were also indicated. In the verification by the Police Department, it emerged that on both the occasions, one person each traveled. The same was proved in the departmental enquiry and accordingly, the petitioner was removed from service. The Labour Court was mostly guided by the fact that there is a possibility for the police officials also to tamper with the warrants and by giving benefit of doubt, directed reinstatement of the petitioner. It was equally guided by the past conduct of the petitioner, which discloses that he was censured at six times, his annual increment was deferred on 9 occasions, suspended twice and warned thrice. The charges framed and found proved against the petitioner were not at all minor. Apart from the amount involved, the nature of misconduct is, in fact, reprehensible. This Court is of the view that the petitioner does not deserve any further relief. The Writ Petition is, accordingly, dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. _________ 18.04.2008 JSU ..... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1.2CCs to 2.2CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WP{TRT} THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 8037 of 2008 Date: 18.04.2008 JSU