IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE FOURTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION NO : 36964 of 1998 Between: The Depot Manager, APSRTC Bus Depot, Narayankhed. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 M. Maniya, Ex-conductor, B-200 S/o. Laxman C/o Narsaiah Hotel, R/o. Ramanthapur, Mandal Yeldurthy, Post Madlaram, District Medak. 2 The Presiding Officer, Labour Court-II, A.P., Hyderabad. .....RESPONDENTS 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 to call for the records relating to the award in I.D.No.212/93 dated 20-7-93 on the file of the Labour Court-II, Hyderabad and quash the same as arbitrary and illegal by way of issue of a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ or order or orders as the Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper i the circumstances of the case Counsel for the Petitioner:SMT.B.G.UMA DEVI Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR LABOUR The Court made the following Order: The Depot Manager, APSRTC, has approached this Court aggrieved by the award of the Labour Court, Hyderabad, in I.D.No.212 of 1993, dated 20.07.1996. The first respondent was appointed as a Conductor in the APSRTC on 29.12.1990. On 07.12.1991, while he was conducting bus No.2718 on route Bidar to Narayankhed, a check was exercised, which eventually resulted in issuing a charge memo dated 24.12.1991 containing the following four charges: i. “For having failed to observe the rule ‘Issue and start’ which constitutes misconduct under Reg. 28 (xxxii) of APSRTC Employees (Conduct) Reg.1963. ii. For having failed to issue ticket to passenger, who was found alighting without ticket at Malkapur having boarded the bus at Bidar ex-stages 10 to 9, even after collecting the fare of Rs.1/- at this boarding place which constitutes misconduct under Reg. 28 (vi)(a) of APSRTC Employees (Conduct) Reg.1963. iii. For having failed to collect the fare and issue tickets to four (4) individual passengers found alighting without tickets, who boarded the bus at Bidar and found alighting at Malkapur, ex-stages 10 to 9, which constitutes misconduct in terms of Reg. 28 (vi)(a) of APSRTC Employees (Conduct) Reg.1963. iv. For having failed to collect the fare and issue tickets to two (2) passengers found travelling without tickets, who boarded the bus at Bidar and found for Natnura, ex-stages 10 to 7/8, which constitutes misconduct in terms of Reg. 28 (vi)(a) of APSRTC Employees (Conduct) Reg.1963. The first respondent was imposed the punishment of removal from service vide proceedings dated 21.08.1992. The appeal preferred thereagainst was rejected on 19.08.1993. Aggrieved thereby, he invoked the jurisdiction of the Labour Court under Section 2-A(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short ‘the Act’). The Labour Court upheld the validity of the domestic enquiry. While exercising the jurisdiction under Section 11-A of the Act, the Labour Court held the charges to have been established. However, on the quantum of punishment, the Labour Court considering the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, nature of service, gravity of irregularities committed, paltry sum involved, held that the punishment imposed was harsh and disproportionate and set aside the order of removal and directed the first respondent to be reinstated into service with all attendant benefits such as continuity of service but without back wages. It is necessary to note that while the first respondent was imposed the punishment of removal from service on 21.08.1992, the award of the Labour Court is dated 20.07.1996. The consequence of the award of the Labour Court denying back wages is that the first respondent had to forego salary for a period of four years. Except for charge No.2, all the other charges relate to failure to issue tickets and collect the fare, at best, constitute negligence in discharge of duties. It is only charge No.2 where the first respondent is said to have collected one rupee and to have failed to issue tickets. While it is no doubt true that the quantum of amount defalcated is of no consequence and it is the act which has to be taken into consideration, the Labour Court in its award has noted that the Conductor had stated that he was not familiar with the route. Even from the averments in the affidavit, the first respondent was appointed as a Conductor in the APSRTC as a daily wage employee on 29.12.1990, the incident took place less than a year thereafter and even in his spot explanation, he had pleaded that he was new to the route. Considering the fact that the Labour Court has denied back wages for a period of four years and since the possibility of a mere error on the part of the first respondent cannot be ruled out, and more so, since this Court in certiorari proceedings does not sit in appeal over the conclusions recorded by the Tribunal, I do not consider it necessary to exercise discretion to interfere with the award. The Writ Petition fails and is, accordingly, dismissed. However, in the circumstances, without costs. ________________ 02-04-2008 usd To 1 The Presiding Officer, Labour Court-II, A.P., Hyderabad. 2 Two CD copies