THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU W.P.No.5292 of 2000 ORAL ORDER: This writ petition is filed challenging the award passed by the Additional Industrial Tribunal-cum-Additional Labour Court, Hyderabad in I.D.No.139 of 1991 dated 21.7.1994 insofar as denying backwages while directing reinstatement of petitioner with continuity of service. Petitioner is workman and second respondent is management. It appears, petitioner while working as Conductor in APSRTC, Kukatpally Bus Depot, was involved in cash and ticket irregularities case, therefore, he was proceeded with departmentally and after conducting a detailed enquiry into the matter, he was removed from service. Aggrieved by the same, he filed appeal and review petition and both were dismissed. Aggrieved by the same, he raised a dispute under Section 2-A(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 before the Additional Industrial Tribunal- cum-Additional Labour Court, Hyderabad in I.D.No.139 of 1991. It was the case of the petitioner that the charges framed against him were trivial in nature and apart from that, there is no evidence to hold him guilty of the charges. Further, assuming that there is any misconduct on his part, punishment of removal from service is disproportionate to that of the misconduct. The Labour Court while holding that the charges are proved, but in the facts and circumstances of the case and considering the fact that on the date when the check was exercised, there were more number passengers in the Bus, took a lenient view of the matter and while exercising its powers under Section 11-A of the Industrial Disputes Act, directed reinstatement of the petitioner with continuity of service, but without any backwages. Aggrieved by the same, the present writ petition is filed. The learned counsel for petitioner strenuously contended that when the Bus was packed with more than 100 passengers, it is very difficult for a Conductor to complete issuance of tickets for short distances moving from one end to another end, particularly in the city. Though the Labour Court considered this aspect of the matter, denied back wages and attendant benefits, which is illegal. I am not in agreement with the said submission made by the learned counsel for petitioner. The charge against the petitioner is that having collected requisite fare at the boarding point itself, he failed to issue tickets to as many as four passengers. There is no doubt as to proving of misconduct. In the facts and circumstances of the case and in view of the fact that there are more number of passengers in the Bus and in view of the past service of the petitioner, the Labour Court has taken a lenient view of the matter and directed reinstatement of petitioner with continuity of service. I am not inclined to interfere with such a reasoned award passed by the Labour Court. The petitioner does not deserve any further relief as prayed for. The writ petition is devoid of merits and liable to be dismissed. The learned counsel for petitioner states that though the petitioner was reinstated into service, his pay has not been re-fixed as per his eligibility. In this regard, no adjudication can be made by this Court. However, petitioner is directed to make a detailed representation to the authority concerned and on making such representation, it is always open for the competent authority to pass appropriate orders, as per law. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of. No order as to costs. _____________ C.V.RAMULU, J Date: 6.2.2008 DA THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU W.P.No.5292 of 2000 6.2.2008 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. RAMULU W.P.No.5292 of 2000 Date: 6th February, 2008 Between: B.Kishan Rao .. Petitioner And The Presiding Officer, Addl. Industrial Tribunal-cum-Addl. Labour Court, Hyderabad & another. .. Respondents