HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA WRIT PETITION No. 20139 OF 2002 . DATED 22nd September, 2011 BETWEEN S.A.Hussaini …Petitioner And The Labour Court-II, Hyderabad, rep. by its Presiding Officer, and anr ….Respondents. HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA WRIT PETITION No. 20139 of 2002 ORDER: Aggrieved by the Nil Award dated 8.7.2002 passed by the first respondent-Labour Court-II, Hyderabad, the petitioner-workman filed the present Writ Petition. The petitioner, while working as a conductor in the service of the respondent-Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation ( for short ‘the APSRTC’), was charge sheeted on 17.10.1998 owing to certain cash and ticket irregularities alleged to have committed by him while conducting the bus service en route ‘Zaheerabad—Hussaini Nagar. After conducting an enquiry into the charges levelled against the petitioner, the respondent-APSRTC passed order dated 23.4.1999 removing the petitioner-workman from service. The petitioner after exhausting the departmental remedies invoked the provision under Section 2-A(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 in I.D.No. 203 of 1999 before the first respondent-Labour Court-II, Hyderabad. The Labour Court upon consideration of the evidence adduced before it, dismissed I.D.No. 203 of 1999 by its Award dated 8.7.2002. Hence, the present Writ Petition. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the Labour Court failed to exercise jurisdiction under Section 11-A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 in the proper perspective in as much as it had passed the award impugned entirely based on the past record of the petitioner-workman though it does not constitute material on record. The next submission of the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that the punishment of removal imposed upon the petitioner is disproportionate to the charges levelled against the petitioner and hence the Labour Court ought not to have dismissed the ID. In support of his contentions, he relied on the judgment of the learned Single Judge of this Court in A.V.Swami Vs. Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Warangal { 1990 (1) LLN.648}. The learned Standing Counsel appearing for the first respondent-APSRTC while reiterating the counter averments supported the findings of the Labour Court. He submitted that the Labour Court passed the Award based on the evidence on record and that there are no grounds to interfere with the Award of the Labour Court by this Court. Perused the case file scrupulously. A bare perusal of the evidence on record would disclose that the petitioner collected back the tickets of Rs.5/- each from two passengers who boarded at Stage No. 7 for Stage No.10/11 and did not produce the said tickets collected from the said passengers to the checking officials. Further the petitioner had reissued the tickets of Rs.5/- bearing No.195/958961 to a passenger who travelled from Stage 7 to Stage 10/11 at 10.30 PM and it was found that the said ticket was already issued and accounted at stage No. 5 at 7.15 PM trip and thus reissue of ticket was established from the SR. The other charge is that the petitioner having collected Rs.5/- from a passenger for his journey from Stage No. 7 to 1 issued ticket No.186/958871, which was not at all connected to the tray numbers. It was the case of the petitioner that none of the passengers were left without tickets, that all the passengers got the tickets at the relevant points of time, and that the passengers without producing the tickets, gave false statements to the checking officials. However, contrary to the same, the petitioner admitted that by the time of check, four passengers were not issued with any tickets and those passengers have been travelling for more than three stages before the surprise check was conducted and therefore the case of the petitioner stated supra did not stand to the point. The Labour Court therefore rightly recorded that if at all the petitioner followed the rule ‘issue and start’ this controversy could not have arisen and there could not be any chance for the passengers to give false statements against the petitioner. Thus, the charges levelled against the petitioner stand proved. The next submission of the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the Labour Court placed much emphasis on the past record of the petitioner while coming to the conclusion in the impugned Award, which ought not to have been done. It is true that the Labour Court in the Award impugned discussed the past record of the petitioner. A perusal of the Award discloses that discussion of the past record of the petitioner was not the basis for reaching the conclusion, but the Labour Court only made a reference, whereas the petitioner admittedly did not observe the rule ‘issue and start’ and committed the cash and ticket irregularities. It is well settled that it is not only the amount involved but the mental set-up, the type of duty performed and similar relevant circumstances which go into the decision making process while considering whether the punishment is proportionate or disproportionate. In REGIONAL MANAGER, U.P.SRTC v. HOTI LAL{(2003)3 SCC 605}, the observations of the Supreme Court in this regard are apposite: “10. ……… If the charged employee holds a position of trust 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 or acts in a fiduciary capacity, the highest degree of integrity and trustworthiness is a must and unexceptionable. ……… From the above dictum of the Supreme Court, it follows that once the petitioner/workman is found guilty of the charges levelled against him reflecting lack of integrity on his part and failure to discharge his fiduciary obligations to the APSRTC, there would be no room for lenience or application of the doctrine of proportionality. In view of the above, the decision relied on by the learned Counsel for the petitioner has no application to the facts of the case on hand. In view of the foregoing discussion, I do not find any merit in the Writ Petition and the same is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. ------------------------------------ -- JUSTICE ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA Dated 22nd September, 2011. Msnro