IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) SATURDAY, THE NINTEENTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU WRIT PETITION NO : 18082 of 1998 Between: The Depot Manager, APSRTC, Kushaiguda depot, Secunderabad. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Labour Court-III, Hyderabad. 2 M. Shankaraiah S/o Sathaiah R/o Venkarial post, Rabinagar Mandal, Nalgonda district. .....RESPONDENT(S) 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, Order or direction particularly one in the Nature of Writ of Certiorari calling for the records relating to I.D.No. 822/93 on the file of the 1st respondent and quash the award dated 19-8-'97 said I.D. published in G.O.Rt.No. 2558/ dt. 10-9-97. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.Y.VIVEKANANDA SWAMY Counsel for the Respondent No.1: GP FOR LABOUR Counsel for the Respondent NO.2: Mr.A.K.Jaya Prakash Rao The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU WRIT PETITION No. 18082 of 1998 ORDER This writ petition is directed against the award dt.19.8.1997 made in I.D.No.822 of 1993 on the file of the Labour Court-III, Hyderabad. Petitioner is the Management and 2nd respondent is the workman. It appears, the 2nd respondent while conducting vehicle No.7506 on route No.281, a surprise check was exercised at stage No.15/16, Shivareddigudem at about 18.45 hours on 30.5.1993 and some serious cash and ticket irregularities were detected by the checking officials. On the basis of charge memo issued by the checking officials, 2nd respondent was issued with a charge sheet enumerating the following charges. 1.For having collected the requisite fare @ /Rs.1/- from 6 passengers who were found traveling in 3 batches boarded the bus at Pogulagudem stage No.14 and bound for Ghatkeshar, stage N0.16 and issued with tickets bearing Nos.016/724411 to 416 of Rs.1/- denomination and punched against stage N0.14/15 instead of punching against stage No.14 and intentionally avoided to account in the service S.R.No.Ao/3975655 dated 30.5.1993 right from stage No.13 to 15/16 (Shivareddyguda) particular denominations. ii.For having failed to close the S.R and to maintain proper accountal of Rs.0.75ps, Rs.1/-, Rs.1.25ps denos. from stage No.13 to 15. iii.For having collected the requisite fare @ Rs.1.25ps each from three passengers who were found travelling from Rampally to Ghatkeshar Ex.Stages 12 to 16 and issued with ticket bearing Nos.005/567093 to 95 of Rs.1.25ps deno. had punched against stage No.13 instead of stage No.12 with a fraudulent motive to reissue the tickets and failed to account in the SR against stage No.13 to 16. iv.For having extended the validity of the above tickets from stage No.12 to 13 with fraudulent intention to reissue. v.For having closed the Rs.2.50ps deno. as 568 against stage No.14/13 in the 20-25 trip (SR No.AO/1624757 dt.30/31.5.93) and rounded off that number and again written as 567 which clearly shows that the ticket is reissued. vi.For having reissued two tickets of Rs.3/- deno bearing Nos.834/544055 and 056 in the 4.50hrs.trip S.R.No.A0/1624757 dt.30/31.5.93which were already accounted at stage No.12 to 10. vii.Of the above two tickets one ticket was reissued and accounted at stage No.10 and one ticket was accounted in 6005hrs tro/against stage No.7 duly altering the S.R closing numbers and also issue of two tickets.” After conducting a detailed enquiry into the said charges, respondent- workman was removed from service. Aggrieved thereby, the respondent raised a dispute under Section 2-A (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short ‘the Act’) before the Labour Court-III, Hyderabad. Before the Labour Court, the respondent-workman examined himself as Ww1 and no documents were marked . On behalf of the Management, MWs 1 and 2 were examined and Exs.M1 to M8 were marked. After a detailed consideration of the entire evidence available on record, the labour Court came to the conclusion that the charges framed against the respondent were proved. But, however, taking into consideration the quantum of money involved and the service of the respondent, a lenient view was taken while exercising the powers under Section-11-A of the Act and the respondent was directed to be reinstated with continuity of service and all attendant benefits. However, back wages were denied and further forfeiture of three annual increments was also ordered. Aggrieved thereby, the present writ petition is filed by the Management. Learned counsel for the petitioner-Management strenuously contended that the charges are very grave in nature and once they are proved, the labour Court ought to have seen that the respondent-workman was not entitled for any relief whatsoever and, therefore, extending the benefit of Section 11-A of the Act also does not arise. This is a case where no lesser punishment than that of removal from service could be imposed. Therefore, the award passed by the labour Court is arbitrary, illegal and liable to be set aside. Per contra, Sri A.K.Jaya Prakash Rao, learned counsel appearing for the respondent-workman contended that the labour Court though held that the charges are proved, they are trivial in nature and under those circumstances, while exercising the powers under Section 11-(A) of the Act, passed such an award and the same cannot be interfered by 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 charges as such, noticed above, are grave in nature and they were held to be proved by the labour Court and the respondent has not challenged such finding recorded by the labour Court which attained finality. Now, the question is as to whether the labour Court exercising its powers under Section 11-A of the Act could pass such an award directing reinstatement with continuity of service and attendant benefits while denying back wages etc. I am in full agreement with the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner-Management that the charges are grave in nature and once they are proved, the respondent was not entitled for any relief as prayed for. The labour Court may pass such an award in the facts and circumstances of a given case, while exercising its powers under Section 11-A of the Act. But that does not mean that even when the charges are proved, the relief of continuity of service and attendant benefits also can be granted. The labour Court ought to have directed reinstatement of the respondent-workman with continuity of service, which shall be counted only for the purpose of terminal benefits and could have denied attendant benefits also. The attendant benefits means only annual grade increments i.e., increments from the date of removal till the date of reinstatement. Under those circumstances, to meet the ends of justice, I deem it appropriate to modify the impugned award passed by the labour Court as under: “In the result, the Management is directed to reinstate the workman into service without any back wages and other attendant benefits. However, the past service of respondent-workman shall be counted only for the purpose of retiral benefits.” With the above modification, the writ petition is disposed of. No costs. _________ 19-04-2008 rkk ..... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1 The Labour Court-III, Hyderabad. 2.2CD copies