IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE THIRTIETH DAY OF APRIL, TWO THOUSAND NINE PRESENT: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.18477 of 2006 Between: The Depot Manager, APSRTC, Governorpet-I Depot, Vijayawada. ..... Petitioner AND The Zonal Chairman, APSRTC Employees Union, Vijayawada Zone, Rep., on behalf of Sri B.P. Ranga Rao & another. .....Respondents Counsel for the petitioner : Sri C. Prakash Reddy SC for APSRTC Counsel for respondent No.1: Sri M.Pitchaiah This Court made the following: THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.18477 of 2006 ORDER:- At the interlocutory stage, the writ petition is taken up for hearing and disposal with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties. Respondent No.1 espoused the cause on Sri B.P. Ranga Rao, a Conductor of the Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation (for short, ‘the Corporation’), who was visited with the penalty of withholding of two annual increments with cumulative effect by the disciplinary authority following a domestic enquiry. The charge against him was that he handled the work of issue of general bus pass tickets without entering the block numbers of the tickets in the way bill, which resulted in misappropriation of a sum of Rs.10,500/- by another employee of the Corporation by name Sri K.N.Rao. In the industrial dispute registered as I.D.No.69 of 2001, the workman admitted his mistake. However, the Labour Court applied the doctrine of proportionality and modified the penalty imposed on the workman to that of deferring two increments without cumulative effect. The Corporation filed the present writ petition questioning the said award. The learned Standing counsel for the petitioner submitted that as the workman admitted his lapse, which constituted negligence on his part, giving scope for misappropriation of a huge sum by another workman, the Labour Court ought not to have interfered with the penalty imposed on the workman by the disciplinary authority. Sri M. Pitchaiah, learned counsel for respondent No.1 union, however, submitted that the lapse, which the workman has admitted, is purely technical in nature and no mala fide intention is attributed to him by the department. He, therefore, submitted that the discretion exercised by the Labour Court under Section 11A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short, ‘the Act’) is not liable to be interfered with. A perusal of the charge framed against the petitioner reveals that on account of workman’s failure to enter the ticket block numbers in the way bill, a sum of Rs.10,500/- was misappropriated by another workman. Neither ill-intention on the part of the workman to misappropriate the amount is imputed nor any collusion between him and Sri K.N.Rao, who misappropriated the said sum, was attributed to the workman. As rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for respondent No.1 that the workman was merely guilty of negligence. In my considered view, the Labour Court exercised its discretion vested under Section 11A of the Act in a judicious manner in taking into consideration two extenuating circumstances, namely, no ill motive is attributed to the workman and Sri K.N.Rao, who misappropriated the money, remitted the same to the Corporation. The Labour Court cannot be said to have committed any error in applying the doctrine of proportionality in a case of this nature and I do not find any reason to interfere with the said award. For the abovementioned reasons, the writ petition is dismissed. As a sequel to dismissal of the writ petition, WPMP.No.23234 of 2006 and WVMP.No.2958 of 2007 are disposed of as infructuous. _____________________________ C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Date: 30.04.2009 ES