IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE NINETEENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION NO : 223 of 1998 Between: S.A.Khan, S/o. Hasan Ali Khan, H.No.9-14-38/2, Ahmed Pura Colony, Nizamabad Dist. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Depot Manager, A.P.S.R.T.C., Nizamabad Depot, Nizamabad Dist. 2 Labour Court II, Hyderabad. ....RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to to call for records relating to and in connection with I.D.No.227/93 dt.22.7.1996 on the file of the respondent No.2 and quash the same as arbitrary and illegal to the extent of denial of backwages of the petitioner and pass Counsel for the Petitioner:SMT C.VANI Reddy Counsel for the Respondent No.: SMT.B.G.UMA DEVI The Court made the following : O R D E R: Aggrieved by the order of Labour Court dated 22-07-1996, in I.D.No.227 of 1993, the present writ petition is filed. The petitioner-workman, a Conductor of the Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation, was issued a charge memo dated 23-11-1992 containing two charges. An enquiry was held and, on his being found guilty of the charges, the first respondent imposed on him the punishment of removal from service vide proceedings dated 08-06-1993. The said order was confirmed in appeal by the appellate authority in its order dated 09-11-1993. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner invoked the jurisdiction of the Labour Court under Section 2-A(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short “the Act”). The Labour Court, in exercising its jurisdiction under Section 11- A of the Act to re-appreciate the evidence, noted the charges and to the fact that the petitioner had given different explanations at different points of time. Thereafter, it noted the contention of the Standing Counsel for the Corporation that the petitioner had purposefully avoided to account for the tickets with a malafide intention to defraud the legitimate revenues of the Corporation and that the petitioner’s explanation was not accepted by the Enquiry Officer. Thereafter, the Labour Court observed that on a careful scrutiny of the material on record, the findings of the Enquiry Officer could not be said to be not properly made and as such they were unassailable and unimpeachable. It is necessary to note that the Labour Court has been conferred the power, under Section 11-A of the Act, to re-appreciate the evidence on record and record its finding as to whether the charges held established against the workman, were in fact established or not. The Labour Court, while exercising its jurisdiction to re-appreciate the evidence, should note, at least briefly, the findings recorded in the domestic enquiry and the reasons as to why it agreed with the findings of the Enquiry Officer. Except to state that the findings of the Enquiry Officer were unassailable and unimpeachable, the Labour Court has not assigned any other reasons in holding that the charges levelled against the petitioner were held established. Smt.C.Vani Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner, would contend, not without justification, that the petitioner has not even been charged on having failed to note the ticket in the SR with the intention to defraud the legitimate revenues of the Corporation. She would refer to the charge memo, and to the evidence on record, to contend that since the petitioner had wrongly noted ticket No.177 as 179, it was merely a mistake on his part and that the charge, of having failed to account for the tickets issued to two passengers who boarded the bus at Nizamabad, did not, in fact, constitute misconduct under Regulation 28(vi) (a) of APSRTC Employees (Conduct) Regulations, 1963. Learned counsel would state that the evidence on record would show that the two passengers who boarded the bus had stated in the spot explanation that they were issued the tickets. Learned counsel would submit that, since the statutory regulations of the Corporation did not enumerate failure to make an entry in the SR as among the enumerated misconducts, the petitioner cannot be held to have committed any misconduct necessitating punishment being imposed on him. Smt.B.G.Uma Devi, learned Standing Counsel for the Corporation, would refer to Regulation 28(32) of the APSRTC Employees (Conduct) Regulations, 1963 to contend that violation of the Rules and the Circulars issued by the Corporation would amount to misconduct and, since the Corporation has issued Circulars which required an entry to be made in the SR, failure on the part of the petitioner to make an entry in the SR was a misconduct for which action could be taken. These submissions, both by Smt.C.Vani Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner, and Smt.B.G.Uma Devi, learned Standing Counsel for the Corporation, are made for the first time before this Court and do not seem to have been agitated before the Labour Court. At least the award of the Labour Court does not disclose any such contention having been raised. Since the Labour Court has failed to exercise its jurisdiction, to re-appreciate the evidence on record, under Section 11-A of the Act, I consider it appropriate to set aside the impugned award and remand the matter back to the Labour Court for its consideration afresh both on the question of re-appreciation of evidence and on the quantum of penalty. Smt.C.Vani Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner, would state that pursuant to the award of the Labour Court, the petitioner was reinstated into service on 08-01-1997 and he retired from service, on reaching the age of superannuation, on 31-08-1997. Since the petitioner has retired more than a decade ago and as the claim in the present writ petition relates to payment of back wages, it is but appropriate that the Labour Court disposes of the matter as expeditiously as possible and passes a reasoned award, in accordance with law, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The writ petition is disposed of accordingly. No costs. ____________________ Ramesh Ranganathan,J Dated 19th February, 2008 vrn ..... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1 The Depot Manager, A.P.S.R.T.C., Nizamabad Depot, Nizamabad Dist. 2 Labour Court II, Hyderabad. 3 2CD copies