IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 6295 of 2000 Between: A.P.S.R.T.C., Rep by its Depot Manger, NARSAMPET Bus Depot, Warangal District. ..... PETITIONER AND M.K.Murthy, E-80190, S/o Narasaiah, R/o 9-9-83, Elamma Bazar, Warangal. .....RESPONDENT 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 issue a writ of certiorari and call for the records in I.D.No.219/1995 dt 6-12-99 on the file of the Labour Court, Warangal and quash the award passed in I.D.No.219/95 dt 6-12-99 and pass such other order or orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstance of the case. Counsel for the Petitioner: SMT.P.RAJANI REDDY (SC FOR APSRTC) Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR LABOUR The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY Writ Petition No. 6295 of 2000 Order: Challenging the award dated 06.12.1999, passed in I.D. No. 219 of 1995 by the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Warangal, directing the petitioner-Corporation to reinstate the first respondent herein into service with backwages and continuity of service, the present writ petition is filed. The first respondent was working as a Conductor in the petitioner-Corporation. On 18.07.1992, while he was conducting the bus bearing No. 5418 on route Warangal to Narsampet a check was exercised by the checking officials and found certain cash and ticket irregularities. With reference to said irregularities, disciplinary proceedings were initiated against the first respondent and by following the procedure contemplated under the Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation Employees (Classification, Control and Appeal) Regulations 1967, an order of removal was passed on 19.11.1992. The said order of removal was challenged by way of application in I.D. No. 219 of 1995, and the Labour Court, Warangal, by impugned award dated 06.12.1999, having held that the charges proved would amount to irregularity but not amounting to misconduct on the part of the first respondent herein, set aside the order of removal and directed the petitioner-Corporation to reinstate the first respondent as Conductor with backwages and continuity of service, but substituted the punishment of removal with that of stoppage of two increments with cumulative effect. Hence, the present writ petition. Heard the learned Standing Counsel for the petitioner- Corporation and Sri A.K. Jaya Prakash Rao, learned counsel for the first respondent. It is contended by the learned Standing Counsel for the petitioner-Corporation that the charges framed against the first respondent are serious in nature and for misappropriation of revenue of the Corporation, and in spite of the fact that the charges are proved against the first respondent in the domestic enquiry conducted, the Tribunal erred in ordering reinstatement with backwages, without recording any valid reasons. On the other hand, it is submitted by Sri A.K. Jaya Prakash Rao, learned counsel for the first respondent that it is always open for the Tribunal to re-appreciate the evidence on record, and that the Tribunal, after re-appreciation of the entire material and evidence on record, has come to a conclusion that the charges framed against the first respondent would not amount to misconduct, so as to impose the extreme punishment of removal from service and, accordingly, set aside the same and imposed lesser punishment of deferment of two increments with cumulative effect, and no reasons to interfere with the same. At the outset, it is to be noticed that with reference to cash and ticket irregularities four charges were framed against the first respondent, which reads as under. “1. For having violated the rule of issue and start which constitutes misconduct under Reg.28(xxxii) of APSRTC Employees (Conduct) Regulation 1963. 2. For having failed to issue tickets to a passenger, even after collecting the requisite fare of Rs.1.75 at the boarding point itself, who found alighting without ticket at F.C.I. godown stage No.7/6 having boarded the bus at Venkatrama theatre stage No.8/7 thus defrauded the legitimate revenues of the Corporation, which constitutes misconduct under Reg.28(vi)(a) of APSRTC Employees (Conduct) Regulation 1963. 3. For having failed to collect the fare and issue tickets to a batch of two passengers, who boarded the bus at Venkatrama Theatre and bound for Dharmasam ex.stages 8/7 to 7/6 which constitutes misconduct under Reg. 28(vi)(a) of APSRTC Employees (Conduct) Reg. 1963. 4. For having failed to close the ticket tray numbers against stage No.7, which constitutes misconduct under Reg.No.28(xxxii) of APSRTC Employees (Conduct) Reg. 1963.” In spite of the fact that on appreciation of the evidence on record, the Enquiry Officer has found that the charges framed against the first respondent were proved, but the Tribunal has simply recorded a finding that the mistake committed by the first respondent for his failure to issue tickets is only an irregularity and no mala fides can be attributed to him for such failure. Even with reference to charge No.3, where the first respondent failed to issue tickets to batch of two passengers, the Tribunal has held that he might not have collected fare from them, on the ground that he was busy in collecting fares from other passengers, and accordingly, ordered reinstatement with backwages. When a duty is cast on the first respondent to issue tickets to all the passengers, he could not have allowed the passengers to travel without issuing tickets to some of the passengers, resulting in loss of revenue to the Corporation. As much as the very charge No.2 is on the allegation that the first respondent has already collected fare but did not issue tickets to the passengers, and when such charge is proved, it cannot be said that it is only an irregularity but not misconduct. The said proved charge clearly constitutes misconduct on the part of the first respondent within the meaning of the Conduct Regulations. The finding of the Tribunal that no mala fides can be attributed to the first respondent is baseless. The very fact that such charge of defrauding the revenue of the Corporation is proved, it can certainly a mala fide action on the part of the first respondent, to pocket the revenue of the Corporation, having collected fare from the passengers. Further, the Tribunal, while awarding lesser punishment, ordered for payment of backwages, in exercise of power under Section 11-A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, without giving any valid reasons. Award of backwages, in such a situation, is elaborately dealt with by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in J.K. Synthetics Ltd., v. K.P. Agrawal[1]. In the afore said judgment, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that where reinstatement is a consequence of imposition of a lesser punishment, neither back wages nor continuity of service nor consequential benefits, follow as a natural or necessary consequence of such reinstatement. It is also held that in cases where the misconduct is held to be proved, and reinstatement is itself a consequential benefit arising from imposition of a lesser punishment, award of back wages for the period when the employee has not worked, may amount to rewarding the delinquent employee and punishing the employer for taking action for the misconduct committed by the employee. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, and in the light of the above said judgment, this Court is of the view that this is not a case at all for awarding backwages and the Tribunal, without recording any valid reasons, in a routine and casual manner ordered for payment of backwages. As much as the workman was already reinstated into service pursuant to award of the Labour Court and has completed more than eight (8) years of service, this Court is of the view that interest of justice would be met if the award of the Labour Court to the extent of granting backwages is set aside, while confirming it’s award in all other aspects. For the aforesaid reasons, the impugned award of the Labour Court to the extent of awarding backwages is set aside, but the award of the Labour Court in all other aspects stands confirmed. It is made clear that the continuity of service awarded by the Labour Court shall be only for the purpose of calculating retiral benefits. The writ petition is partly allowed to the extent as indicated above. There shall be no order as to costs. _____________________ R. SUBHASH REDDY, J. Date: 17.02.2009 Nsr [1] (2007) 2 SCC 433