HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.24855 OF 2000 ORDER: The 1st respondent was employed as a Conductor in Parkal Depot of Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation. On 22- 11-1985, while he was conducting a bus on the Narlapoor route, a check was caused at stage No.2. It was alleged that the 1st respondent did not collect the fare from a batch of 8 passengers and did not issue tickets. In his explanation, the 1st respondent stated tat he was in the process of issuing tickets and was discussing about the amount of fare to be collected and that hardly one stage has passed since journey was commenced, that the check had taken place. 2. A charge sheet was issued, domestic enquiry was conducted and the petitioner passed an order removing the 1st respondent from service. Aggrieved thereby, the 1st respondent filed I.D. No.41 of 1997 in the Industrial Tribunal – cum – Labour Court, Warangal. Through its award dated 12-07-2000, the Labour Court has set aside the order of removal and directed reinstatement of the 1st respondent into service. Back wages to an extent of 50% from the date of filing of the I.D. till the date of award were awarded. Punishment of withholding of two increments with cumulative effect, after reinstatement, was imposed. Feeling aggrieved by the order of reinstatement and direction as to payment of back wages, as indicated above, petitioner filed this writ petition. 3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. There is no representation for the 1st respondent. 4. The charge against the 1st respondent was that he failed to collect the fare and issue tickets to a batch of 8 passengers. Charge Nos. 1 and 3 were almost formal in nature. In the domestic enquiry, the charges were held proved. Though the Labour Court held that the domestic enquiry was not defective, it has undertaken extensive discussion with reference to charge No.2. It formed an opinion that the 1st respondent was in the process of issuing tickets by the time the check took place, and there was no act of misconduct on the part of the employee. It is in this context that the order of removal was set aside and the punishment, as indicated in the previous paragraphs, was imposed. It hardly needs any mention that Labour Court adopted the course as above, in exercise of its discretion under Section 11-A of the Industrial Disputes Act (for short ‘the Act’). 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance upon the order passed by the Supreme Court in REGONAL MANAGER, RSRTC v. GHANSHYAM SHARMA[1], wherein it was observed that the discretion that can be exercised by the Labour Court under Section 11-A of the Act in cases where the charge is held proved, cannot be invoked to the extent of payment of back wages. In the instant case, the Labour Court took the view that the main charge, viz., that the 1st respondent failed to collect the fare and issue tickets, was not proved to the extent of establishing misconduct. In a cautious manner, the Labour Court granted 50% of back wages, limited to the period, from the date of filing of the I.D. to the date of passing of the award. Even this limited benefit is taken away by imposing the punishment of withholding of two future increments with cumulative effect. This Court is not inclined to interfere with the award passed by the Tribunal. 6. Hence, the Writ Petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. ____________________ L. NARASIMHA REDDY, J December 02, 2010. KTL [1] 2002(10) Supreme Court Cases 330