THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO.17870 OF 2000 DATED 8TH SEPTEMBER, 2010 BETWEEN V.Muthaiah … Petitioner And The Labour Court-II, 4th Floor, Chandravihar Building, Nampally, Hyderabad, Rep. by its Presiding Officer and Another. … Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO.17870 OF 2000 ORDER: Aggrieved by the NIL Award dated 03.08.1999 passed by the Labour Court-II, Hyderabad, in I.D.No.93 of 1996, the present writ petition is filed. The petitioner, a Conductor in the service of the Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation (APSRTC) since 24.05.1977, was subjected to a check while he was conducting the bus service on the route Nizamabad-Kamareddy on 31.07.1995. Certain cash and ticket irregularities were allegedly detected during the said check leading to the initiation of disciplinary proceedings against him. The substantial charge against the petitioner was that he had failed to issue tickets to five passengers in spite of having received the ticket fare from them. After conducting a domestic enquiry, the APSRTC having followed the due procedure removed the petitioner from service by order dated 31.10.1995. His appeal and revision against the same met with failure on 06.04.1996 and 17.06.1996 respectively. He therefore invoked the powers of the Labour Court under Section 2-A(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for brevity, ‘the Act of 1947’) by way of the subject I.D. The Labour Court, upon considering the material on record, came to the conclusion that the petitioner was guilty of the misconduct alleged against him in all respects. It accordingly confirmed the punishment of removal from service imposed upon the petitioner by the APSRTC and passed the NIL Award dated 03.08.1999. Sri V.Narasimha Goud, learned counsel for the petitioner, contended that the Labour Court erred in appreciating the evidence on record and erroneously confirmed the findings recorded in the enquiry which were thereafter accepted by the disciplinary authority. He further contended that the Labour Court erred in taking into account the earlier punishments imposed upon the petitioner while dealing with the matter, when the same did not form part of the ‘material on record’ and were not part of the charges levelled against the petitioner. It is no doubt true that the Labour Court is required under the provisions of the Act of 1947 to limit its consideration to the material on record. As pointed out by a learned Judge of this Court in A.V.SWAMI v. INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT, WARANGAL[1], the past record of service does not constitute the ‘material on record’ unless it is specifically made so by reference in the charges itself. When made part of the ‘material on record’, the past conduct of the employee would be relevant under Section 11-A of the Act of 1947 while applying the doctrine of proportionality. Trite to state, in matters relating to financial irregularities this Court would be loath to interfere on the ground of proportionality of the punishment. When an employee holds a position of trust and where honesty and integrity are inbuilt requirements of functioning, it would not be proper to deal with the matter leniently. Misconduct in such cases has to be dealt with iron hands. Where the person deals with public money or is engaged in financial transactions, the highest degree of integrity and trustworthiness is a must and is unexceptionable [REGIONAL MANAGER, UPSRTC v. HOTI LAL[2]]. In such a scenario, the doctrine of proportionality normally has no role to play. In the present case, the five ticketless passengers were not traveling as a group. As indicated in the charge itself, they were travelling in two sets of two passengers each and one passenger individually. All of them unequivocally stated that they had paid the ticket fare to the petitioner. His defence on the other hand was that he had neither collected the ticket fare nor issued them tickets. He claimed that they had deceived him by stating that they had purchased tickets. It is difficult to believe that these unconnected passengers would have all adopted the same ruse to deceive the petitioner. Further, as pointed out by the Labour Court, there were only 29 passengers in all travelling in the bus at that time. That being so, it is difficult to believe the version put forth by the petitioner. In such circumstances, the finding of the Labour Court that the guilt of the petitioner was duly established does not call for any interference. Mere reference to the petitioner’s past irregularities, though unwarranted, would not vitiate the said finding or the net result in the I.D. Once the findings in the enquiry, duly accepted by the disciplinary authority, were found to be correct by the Labour Court, there was no scope for interference in the matter under Section 11-A of the Act of 1947 as it involved financial irregularities by the petitioner causing loss to the employer, the APSRTC. The Writ Petition is therefore devoid of merit and is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. ____________________ SANJAY KUMAR, J. 8TH SEPTEMBER, 2010 VGSR/PGS [1] 1990 (1) IL.L.N. 648 [2] (2003) 3 SCC 605