HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA WRIT PETITION No.2918 of 2006 Date: December 02, 2010 Between: The Depot Manager, A.P.S.R.T.C., Hayathnagar Depot. … Petitioner And 1. K. Laxmaiah & another … Respondents * * * HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA WRIT PETITION No.2918 of 2006 ORDER: The petitioner-Management is aggrieved of the award dated 24.6.2004 passed by the Presiding Officer, Labour Court-I, A.P., Hyderabad, vide which the first respondent was ordered to be reinstated into service within one month from the date of publication of the award. The Labour Court further declared that the workman shall also be entitled to back wages at 50% along with interest at the rate of 12% per annum in case the amount of back wages is not paid within one month. The Labour Court also held the workman is entitled for continuity of service but without attendant benefits for the break period. 2. The brief facts of the case are the first respondent was appointed as conductor on daily wage basis on 24.9.1987 and his services were regularized on 08.02.1988. On 13.6.2000 the first respondent was suspended and charge sheeted on charges of issuance of ticket irregularities. An inquiry was conducted and the charges were proved and accordingly the first respondent was removed from service after following due procedure. The appeal and review filed by the first respondent were also dismissed. 3. The first respondent raised industrial dispute before the Labour Court. It was argued on behalf of the workman that as the charge was very trivial in nature inasmuch as he was alleged to have misappropriated a sum of Rs.8/-, therefore the punishment was not commensurate with the charge and was highly excessive. The Labour Court after going through the entire evidence found that the cash involved in the case was Rs.8/- only and hence the Management ought to have imposed a lesser punishment. Accordingly, it passed the award as mentioned in the opening paragraph. 4. Counsel for the Management submits that pursuant to the award passed by the Labour Court, the workman has already been reinstated. He however submits that the first respondent, who was working as conductor, was involved in cash irregularities inasmuch as he was reissuing old tickets to the passengers and hence the award is liable to be set aside. Learned counsel has placed reliance on the decision in Regional Manager, RSRTC v. Ghanshyam Sharma[1] wherein it was held by the Apex Court that the main duty of the conductor is to issue tickets and to collect fare and to deposit the same with the Road Transport Corporation which he failed to do, and, hence, the Apex Court set aside the award passed by the Labour Court holding that the workman is not entitled to misplaced sympathy with regard to his reinstatement. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that as the respondent has already been reinstated in service, therefore, he is not challenging his reinstatement. But keeping in view the irregularities committed by the first respondent he is not entitled to any back wages. 6. No one has put in appearance on behalf of the first respondent. 7. After going through the award passed by the Labour Court and hearing the counsel for Management, I am of the considered opinion that the workman was involved in cash irregularities however small it may have been. 8. In these circumstances, while following Ghanshyam Sarma’s case supra, I am of the considered opinion that the workman is not entitled to any back wages. Resultantly the writ petition filed on behalf of the Management is partly allowed to the extent that the workman is not entitled to any back wages. However, the award of the Labour Court with regard to the reinstatement of the workman is upheld. Writ petition disposed of. No costs. ___________________________ ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA, J Date: December 02, 2010. BSB [1] 2002-I-LLJ 234 SC