IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD THURSDAY, THE FOURTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI ANIL R. DAVE, THE CHIEF JUSTICE and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY WRIT APPEAL NO : 897 of 2008 (Writ Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the Order dated 18/01/2008 in WP NO : 21680 OF 1998 on the file of the High Court.) Between: P.S.N.Murthy, S/o. Eswara Dath,Hindu, R/o. No.19/39, Lingala Colony, Payakaraopet, Visakhapatnam. ..... APPELLANT AND 1 The Depot Manager, APSRTC, Tuni, East Godavari District. 2 Industrial Tribunal-Labour Court, Visakhapatnam. .....RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Appellant:DR.P.B.VIJAY KUMAR Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR LABOUR The Court made the following : JUDGMENT: (Per Anil R. Dave, CJ) Being aggrieved by the order dated 18-1-2008 passed in W.P.No. 21680 of 1998, this appeal has been ﬁled by driver of the APSRTC. The allegation against the appellant-driver in a nutshell was that he demanded and accepted additional money towards fuel charges so as to deviate from the normal route, which was quite congested. This charge was proved in the departmental enquiry and accordingly the appellant was removed from service. The appellant-driver had approached the Labour Court and the Labour Court took a lenient view by directing the respondent-employer to reinstate the appellant in a lower grade without back wages but with continuity of service. The aforestated award of the Labour Court was challenged by the employer-APSRTC. The petition ﬁled by the employer has been allowed. The learned Single Judge came to the conclusion that looking to the facts of the case, it was not proper on the part of the Labour Court to modify the punishment. It was the view of the learned Single Judge that the power under Section 11-A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ought not to have been exercised by the Tribunal as a matter of course and looking to the facts of the case, punishment should not have been reduced. We have heard the learned Advocate appearing for the appellant-driver. We are in agreement with the view expressed by the learned Single Judge and looking to the nature of the misconduct of the appellant-driver, the appellant-driver could not have been continued in service. Looking to the behaviour of the appellant, in our opinion, no employer can trust such an employee. For the aforestated reasons, the appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs. ______________________ ANIL R. DAVE, CJ _________________________ R.SUBHASH REDDY, J 4th September, 2008. GRR