THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU W.P.No.21504 of 2007 ORAL ORDER: This writ petition is filed challenging the Award made in I.D.No.53 of 2006 dated 5.7.2007 on the file of the learned Presiding Officer, Labour Court-III, Hyderabad, whereunder the application filed by the petitioner-workman under Section 2-A(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 praying to set aside the removal orders dated 8.3.2006 passed by the respondent-management and to direct the respondents to reinstate the petitioner into service with continuity of service, back wages and other attendant benefits was dismissed. Petitioner is workman and respondents are management. It appears, petitioner was appointed as Conductor in the Respondent Corporation with effect from 11.2.1984. On 15.10.2005, while he was conducting the Bus, a check was exercised by the checking officials at 14.40 hours at Ramaram X Roads at stage No.2/3 of the Bus route and the checking officials detected certain cash and ticket irregularities. Therefore a charge memo was issued to the petitioner. On the basis of charge memo, a charge sheet was issued and explanation was called from the petitioner and having not satisfied with the explanation offered by the petitioner, an enquiry was conducted and the enquiry officer submitted his report, after completing all the formalities, holding the petitioner guilty of charges. The disciplinary authority, after going through the entire record placed before him and the report of the enquiry officer, came to the conclusion that the petitioner has committed grave misconduct and therefore liable for termination. Accordingly, the disciplinary authority passed removal orders dated 8.3.2006 removing the petitioner from service. Being aggrieved by the same, petitioner raised a dispute under Section 2-A(2) of the I.D. Act. before the Labour Court, Hyderabad. It was the case of the petitioner before the Labour Court that the enquiry was not properly conducted and absolutely there was no evidence to hold him guilty of charges and assuming that the charges are proved, the punishment of removal from service is disproportionate to that of the misconduct. On a detailed consideration of the entire material placed before it, the Labour Court vide impugned award dismissed the claim petition filed by the petitioner. Being aggrieved by the same, the present writ petition is filed. The learned counsel for petitioner strenuously contended that the Labour Court has not properly appreciated the evidence on record and moreover, even assuming that the petitioner has committed any misconduct, the punishment of removal from service is shockingly disproportionate to that of the misconduct. Whereas the learned counsel appearing for respondents supported the impugned award passed by the Labour Court and submitted that the Labour Court has not committed any error calling for interference of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. I have given my earnest consideration to the respective submissions made by the learned counsel on either side and perused the impugned award and other material made available on record. The petitioner was appointed as Conductor with effect from 11.2.1984. He had put in 22 years of service. Before the petitioner was removed from service vide order dated 8.3.2006, there was no much past misconduct attributed to the petitioner. This is a case where petitioner, having collected money, failed to issue tickets to two passengers. The Labour Court has not accepted the version of the petitioner, therefore confirmed the termination order passed by the disciplinary authority. Though the enquiry conducted and holding the petitioner guilty of the charges cannot be found fault, I am of the opinion that the Labour Court has not properly exercised its power vested under Section 11-A of the I.D. Act while disposing of the claim petition, since there was no much blemished service attributable to the petitioner, therefore removal from service is disproportionate to that of the misconduct. The Labour Court, ought to have granted some relief to the petitioner as the removal was disproportionate to the proved misconduct. Under those circumstances, the award passed by the Labour Court requires to be modified as under: “The respondent-Management is directed to reinstate the petitioner into service with continuity of service, without back wages and without any attendant benefits. The period from the date of till the date of reinstatement, shall not be treated for the purpose of seniority and other benefits and the said period shall be counted only for the purpose of retiral benefits”. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of. No order as to costs. ______________ C.V.RAMULU, J Date: 16.4.2010 DA THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU W.P.No.21504 of 2007 16.4.2010 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU W.P.No.21504 of 2007 Date: 16th April, 2010 Between: V.Ravindra .. Petitioner And The Presiding Officer, Labour Court-III, Hyderabad & others. .. Respondents