HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI WRIT PETITION No. 9317 OF 2000 Thursday, the Twenty Third day of September, Two Thousand and Ten Between Ch. Krishna Rao (died) per L.Rs. Chilla Bhagyalaxmi and others Petitioners AND The Chairman, Industrial Tribunal & Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Visakhapatnam and another Respondents ORAL ORDER: Seeking to quash the nil award dated 06.10.1999 passed in I.D. No.179 of 1996 by the first respondent in respect of a petition filed under Sec. 2A(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act declining to grant any service benefits claimed by the petitioners herein, being the legal representatives of the deceased workman, the present writ petition is filed. The deceased workman was regularly appointed as Conductor in the A.P. State Road Transport Corporation on 28.12.1985 and his services were regularized in the year 1987. On 26.6.1995 while the petitioner was conducting the bus bearing No. AP-9Z-6126, on return journey from Madras to Amalapuram, he is alleged to have altered the closing number of Rs.50/- denomination tickets and also interpolated the entries in the S.R. apart from misappropriating the amount and mischievously handing over the tray with punched tickets. The petitioner was served with a charge memo and not being satisfied with the explanation, a regular enquiry was ordered and in culmination of the enquiry, basing upon the enquiry report, the petitioner was served with a show cause notice proposing to remove him from service. The deceased workman was heard personally and ultimately the proposed penalty of removal from service was imposed by order dated 18.12.1995. It is further case of the petitioners that the Appeal and Review filed against the order of removal before the Divisional Manager and the Regional Manager were also rejected confirming the order of removal. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioners raised the above I.D. before the first respondent, which passed the award impugned in the present writ petition rejecting the claim of back wages and service benefits. Heard learned counsel for the writ petitioners and the learned Standing Counsel for the second respondent. Several contentions are sought to be raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners. It is contended that the first respondent ought to have exercised powers under Sec. 11-A and ought not to have imposed the major penalty of removal from service as the charges, even if taken to be proved, do not warrant such punishment. The Labour court has extensively dealt with the evidence let in during the course of enquiry. It is not in dispute that there is correction with regard to the denomination of Rs.50/- tickets. The Labour Court has observed that even if the corrections as spoken to by the workman in Ex.M-5 are taken to be true, still the two corrections in the figures 811, would not have been there. It is further observed that the mala fide intention, can also be seen from the fact that the workman had closed the punch holes on the punched tickets, making it difficult to verify, which the ADC, on taking the tray, had not seen into the SR entries. The Labour Court having gone through the documentary evidence has rightly observed that the second respondent is justified in drawing conclusion about guilt of the workman. Having gone through the material available on record and the findings recorded by the Labour Court, I am of the considered view that the Labour court has rightly negatived the claim of the legal representatives of the workman. Hence, I do not see any justifiable ground warranting interference. Consequently, the award impugned is confirmed and the writ petition is liable to be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. ________________________ Justice T. Meena Kumari September 23, 2010 MAS