THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH W.P.NO.15955 OF 2000 O R D E R Heard both the counsel. 2. Aggrieved by the award dated 24.2.1990 passed by the Industrial Tribunal – cum – Labour Court at Warangal in I.D.No.43 of 1990, the present writ petition is ﬁled by the petitioner, who is the working as Conductor in the Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation (for short ‘the Corporation’). 3. From the material on record, it could be seen that the petitioner was appointed as Conductor in the Warangal Division on 26.2.1977 and was allotted to Hanamakonda Depot and that while he was conducting the bus APZ 950 on 27.11.1983 on the route 21/5 from Subedari to Darmaram and returning from Dharmaram to Hanamkonda Depot, special checking squad made a surprise check at stage no.6/5 i.e., bus stand cross road near the police station at about 18-45 hours and out of 16 passengers, ten passengers were found to be staﬀ members and the remaining six passengers are ladies who boarded the bus at stage no.8/7 i.e, super bar to stage no.6/5 – bus station. The said six lady passengers were found to be traveling without tickets and the petitioner also closed the try numbers of all the denominations against stage no.6. Therefore, the checking oﬃcers issued charge memo dated 27.11.1983 and not being satisﬁed with the explanation, the Corporation issued charge sheet framing three charges as under: 1. For having failed to observe the TIC point at Super Bazar. 2. For having failed to collect the fare and issue tickets to a batch of six lady passengers traveling from super bazar to new bus station ex-stages 8/7 to 6/5. 3. For having closed the tray numbers of all denominations upto the place of check without completing the ticket issues to the above passengers. 4. In the domestic enquiry conducted, to prove the misconduct of the petitioner, the T.T.I. who participated in the check was examined and the petitioner examined himself as defence witness. During domestic enquiry, the spot explanation of the petitioner was also marked. The enquiry oﬃcer after conducting enquiry, submitted report and based on the said report, the petitioner was served a show cause notice and he submitted his explanation and not being satisﬁed with the explanation, he was terminated from service. Challenging the same, he ﬁled industrial dispute. The Tribunal considering the material on record, modiﬁed the order of removal to that of reinstatement with continuity of service, but without back wages and further directed withholding of six annual increments from the date of suspension till the date of reinstatement immediately after the publication of the award. Aggrieved by the award of the Tribunal, the Conductor ﬁled the writ petition. 5. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the enquiry oﬃcer did not appreciate the evidence on record before ﬁnding the petitioner guilty and the appellate authority and the Tribunal accepted the same, without appreciating the evidence independently. She submitted that the punishment imposed against the petitioner was disproportionate to the gravity of misconduct. She further submitted that the Tribunal though granted continuity of service without back wages, again ordered for withholding of six annual increments from the date of suspension till reinstatement. She submitted that when the continuity of service was granted by the Tribunal, it ought not have again ordered for withholding of the increments. Therefore, she sought to modify the impugned award. 6. On the other hand, the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the Corporation supporting the impugned Award, sought for dismissal of the writ petition. 7. In view of the above contentions, the point that arises for my consideration is whether there are any grounds to interfere with the impugned award? 8. The petitioner was appointed as Conductor in the respondent – Corporation on 26.2.1977 and that when he was conducing the bus APZ 950 on 27.11.1983 on the route no.21/5 from Subedari to Darmaram and returning from Dharmaram to Hanamkonda Depot, at stage no.6/5 i.e., bus stand cross road near the police station at about 18-45 hours. Out of the sixteen passengers, though ten passengers are staﬀ members, the remaining six passengers who are ladies, are found to be without any tickets and the petitioner closed the try numbers of all the denominations against stage no.6. Therefore, the checking oﬃcer issued charge memo dated 27.11.1983 and not being satisﬁed with the explanation, charge sheet was issued to the petitioner on 9.12.1983. In the domestic enquiry, the checking oﬃcer who participated in the check was examined and the petitioner was also examined as defence witness. Based on the evidence, the petitioner was found to be guilty. The same was accepted by the appellate authority. Before the Tribunal, the petitioner did not lead any evidence, either oral or documentary and the Tribunal based on the evidence, had drawn the inference that the petitioner failed to issue tickets and collect the fare from the six lady passengers. This being the ﬁnding of fact, cannot be interfered with under the writ jurisdiction. 9. The Tribunal considering the facts and circumstances, had modiﬁed the punishment imposed on the petitioner from that of removal to that of reinstatement with continuity of service, without back wages and further ordered for withholding of six annual increments from the date of suspension till the date of reinstatement. 10. At this juncture it is to be noticed that the Tribunal by exercising the discretionary jurisdiction under Section 11-A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 had ordered reinstatement and also granted continuity of service, however, without back wages. Therefore, I am of the considered view that when the Tribunal granted continuity of service, it ought not have again ordered for withholding of six annual increments. When the petitioner is granted continuity of service, he is entitled for notional beneﬁts. Further, no reasons are assigned by the Tribunal for withholding of six annual increments, when it had granted continuity of service. Therefore, in these circumstances, the order of the Tribunal withholding six annual increments of the petitioner, deserves to be set aside. Accordingly, by setting aside the order of the Tribunal directing withholding of the six annual increments from the date of suspension till the date of reinstatement of the petitioner, the remaining order is confirmed. 11. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of. No costs. AVS ----------------------------------- 07—08—2008