HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. RAMULU WRIT PETITION No.8039 OF 2003 ORDER: This Writ Petition seeking a certiorari is directed against an award made in I.D. No.55 of 2002 dated 09-12-2002 on the file of the learned Industrial Tribunal – II, Hyderabad, whereunder, the claim petition filed by respondent No.1 – workman, petitioner before the Tribunal, under Section 2-A (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short “ID Act”) was allowed directing the petitioner Management – APSRTC, respondent before the Tribunal, to reinstate the Workman into service with continuity of service, 50% of backwages and 50% of attendant benefits. 2. It appears, respondent No.1 was working as a conductor and was attached to APSRTC Bus Depot, Kushaiguda. While conducting a bus on 02-10-1997, on the Route No.16, a check was exercised and certain cash and ticket irregularities were detected, and a charge memo was issued by the T.T.Is. 3. On the basis of the charge memo, a charge sheet was issued enumerating the following charges: “1. For have failed to complete ticket issues within one fare stage and to observe the TIC point enroute towards Sec’bad Station.” 2. For have failed to issue ticket to a batch of (Three) 3 passengers, even after colleting ticket fare who were found travelling without tickets, having boarded at your bus safilguda and bound for Sec’bad Station ex-stages 5 to 1.” 4. Workman submitted an explanation for the above charges. 5. Having not satisfied with the explanation submitted by the Workman, the disciplinary authority ordered for a detailed enquiry. The enquiry officer submitted a report holding the Workman guilty of the charges. The disciplinary authority, after completing the formalities, passed an order of removal from service dated 11-05-1998. Aggrieved of the same, Workman preferred an appeal and the same ended in dismissal. Thus, Workman filed a claim petition, under Section 2-A (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short “ID Act”) before the Labour Court which was numbered as I.D. No.55 of 2002. 6. It was the case of the Workman before the Labour Court that enquiry was not properly conducted and charges are as vague as could they be, apart from being trivial. Even presuming that the charges were proved, the punishment of removal from service was disproportionate to that of the misconduct. The petitioner Management filed a detailed counter denying the allegations made by the Workman and further stated that past conduct of the Workman was also not good. 7. On behalf of the Workman as well as the petitioner Management, none was examined. Further, on behalf of the Workman, no documents were marked. However, on behalf of the petitioner Management, Exs.M-1 to M-20 were marked. 8. Workman filed a memo under Section 11-A of the ID Act indicating that the validity of the domestic enquiry is not challenged and there is no necessity of examining the validity of the enquiry. Thus, the enquiry was held to be valid and proper by the Labour Court. However, while examining the merits of the case, it came to the conclusion that charges framed against the Workman are not proved and the enquiry officer was not justified in holding that charges 1 and 2 levelled against the Workman were proved, granted a relief of reinstatement with continuity of service, 50% of backwages and 50% of attendant benefits. Aggrieved thereof, the present writ petition is filed. 9. Sri K. Madhav Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner Management – APSRTC, strenuously contended that passengers in question boarded the bus at Stage No.5 and were travelling to Stage No.1 i.e., from Safilguda to Secunderabad Station and the Workman, having collected requisite fare, did not issue tickets, though the bus travelled beyond two fare stages and the check was exercised between Stage Nos.3 and 2 (i.e. at 3/2) and the passengers were found without any tickets. Therefore, the fact that Workman did not issue tickets is admitted, as such, under what circumstances, Workman did not issue tickets need not be gone into by the Management. Therefore, Workman’s removal from service in a case of this nature is just and proper. No ground was made out by the Workman requiring interference of the Labour Court in setting aside the removal order passed by the Management. Thus, the award passed by the Labour Court is liable to be set aside. 10. Whereas, Sri A.K. Jayaprakash Rao, learned counsel appearing for the Workman - respondent No.1, supported the award passed by the Labour Court and further stated that the T.T.Is. have manipulated the record to show that the passengers in question were travelling from “Stage No.5 to Stage No.1” instead of “Stage No.3 to Stage No.1”, for which fare was collected. The Labour Court has gone into this aspect and found that the charges are not proved and thus granted the relief as noticed above. The Labour Court has not committed any error calling for interference of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 11. I have given my earnest consideration to the respective submissions made by the learned counsel on either side, perused the impugned award and other material made available on record. 12. It appears, there is some manipulation of the statement of the passengers. This was noticed by the Labour Court. The words “New bridge” was rounded off and “Safilguda” has been written. A bare look at the S.R. placed by the learned counsel for the petitioner Management also shows that fare was more than Rs.3-50 Ps., from Stage No.5 to Stage No.1 as on 02-10-1997, whereas the amount collected by the Workman, even according to the petitioner Management, was Rs.2-25 Ps. only. Thus, statement of the Workman that the passengers were travelling from “Stage No.3 to Stage No.1” and check was exercised at the Stage of 3/2 i.e. between Stage Nos.3 and 2 and it was within two fare stages, which is permissible on the city routes, appears to be correct. The Labour Court gave its finding in this regard as under: “Ex.M2 was the statement given by the passenger to the effect “I boarded along with my mother & sister total 3 persons Bus No.6051 Rt. No.16 & paid Rs.10/-, conductor not issued tickets, we boarded at Safilguda and bound for 5 station and refined Rs.1.75 Ps (8.25 Ps.)” The above statement of the passenger show material alterations at 3 places. Initially it was mentioned Rt. No.15, ‘New Bridge’ and refund Rs.3.25 Ps., later they were altered as RT.No16 ‘safilguda’ and Rs.1.75 Ps. The places where alterations were made initials of the person who altered them were not there. At the bottom of the statements nothing was mentioned about such corrections or alterations. The stand of the petitioner from the very beginning was that those alterations were originally got there when he attested the statement but brought into existence at a later stage to implicate him falsely. Those alterations were visible to the naked eye. The allegation of the petitioner was that it was the checking officials who made those alterations in the Ex.M2. It was but natural for the checking official to depose before the domestic enquiry officer that such alterations were not made by them. In such circumstances the respondent was to examine the passenger who gave that statement, at the time of domestic enquiry, to prove the stand of the respondent. In the absence of examining the passenger by the respondent before the domestic enquiry officer, the allegation of the petitioner that those alterations were brought into existence at a later stage to falsely implicate him remain unshattered, because the burden lies on the respondent which relies on Ex.M2 and which as the main document according to the respondent to prove the charges against the petitioner. When the petitioner failed to prove Ex.M2 and under the circumstances as discussed above when the evidence of the Inspecting official cannot be believed for the mentioned above. The enquiry officer was not justified in holding the charges 1 & 2 levelled against the petitioner were proved by the respondent. Neither in the charge-sheet nor in the show cause notice of removal to the petitioner the respondent pointed out about the punishments earlier imposed to the petitioner so the aspect that the petitioner was imposed punishments earlier should not be taken into consideration. For the reasons mentioned above the respondent was not justified in removing the petitioner from service. 13. From the above, it is clear that the Workman having collected the money from three (3) passengers, could not issue the tickets and the check had taken place between Stage Nos.3 and 2 and the passengers in question were travelling from Stage No.3 to Stage No.1. Therefore, I am of the opinion that the Labour Court has rightly found that the Workman was supposed to finish the issue of tickets within two fare stages, whereas in this case, bus moved only half the stage from Stage No.3 and the check was exercised between Stage Nos.3 and 2, which is within the permissible distance i.e., within two fare stage. However, in the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the opinion that the award passed by the Labour Court is liable to be modified by holding that the Workman is entitled to only 25% of the backwages instead of 50%. 14. Accordingly, the award of the Labour Court stands modified to the extent indicated above. 15. With the above modification, the Writ Petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. _____________________ C.V. RAMULU, J July 13, 2010. PV