THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO.155 OF 2004 DATED 18TH DECEMBER, 2009 BETWEEN The Divisional Manager, APSRTC, Kurnool, Kurnool District. … Petitioner and The Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Ananthapur rep. by its Presiding Officer. And Another … Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO.155 OF 2004 ORDER: The Divisional Manager, Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation (APSRTC), Kurnool, filed this writ petition aggrieved by the Award dated 09.04.2003 passed by the Industrial Tribunal-cum- Labour Court, Anantapur, in I.D.No.116 of 2000. By the said Award, the Industrial Tribunal modified the punishment imposed upon a Conductor by directing the APSRTC to pass orders granting him continuity of service and imposing upon him the penalty of reduction of increments by three years with cumulative effect and lowering of his seniority by thirty places. The Industrial Tribunal further held that the Conductor would not be entitled to any back wages and that the continuity of service given to him should only be notional. The facts germane for this adjudication are that the Conductor was removed from service by order dated 27.11.1976 owing to certain cash and ticket irregularities held proved against him. However, upon his appeal, the appellate authority modified the punishment and directed that the Conductor should be appointed as a fresh Conductor. As there was no provision in the APSRTC Employees (CCA) Regulations, 1967 empowering the appellate authority to pass such an order, the APSRTC National Mazdoor Union, Kurnool, espousing the cause of the Conductor, got the dispute referred through the appropriate Government for adjudication by the Industrial Tribunal under Section 10(1)(c) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The Industrial Tribunal, upon considering the material on record, concurred with the findings in the enquiry and opined that the charges against the Conductor were very serious and therefore, he did not deserve any sympathy. However, taking note of the fact that the Conductor having been removed from service on 27.11.1976 was thereafter reinstated in service as per the orders dated 18.04.1977, the Industrial Tribunal directed the APSRTC to grant continuity of service to him notionally and imposed upon him the penalty of withholding of increments for three years with cumulative effect and also reduction in seniority by thirty places. The Industrial Tribunal also denied him back wages. Smt.W.V.S.Rajeswari, learned standing counsel for the APSRTC, submitted that once the Industrial Tribunal concluded that the charge against the Conductor were very serious, it ought not to have modified the punishment. Sri G.Ravi Mohan, learned counsel for the Union which espoused the cause of the Conductor, pointed out that the Industrial Tribunal only granted notional continuity of service to the Conductor and also denied him back wages. He therefore submitted that the interest of the APSRTC was adequately protected by the Industrial Tribunal and therefore, the Award under challenge did not warrant interference by this Court. The facts on record establish that the Conductor remained out of service only from 27.11.1976 upto 18.04.1977. He was therefore denied employment in the APSRTC for a period of about five months. Though the Industrial Tribunal was of the opinion that the charges framed against the Conductor were serious, in exercise of its discretion it modified the punishment imposed upon him. It is also to be noticed that by virtue of such modification the Conductor was denied his increments for three years with cumulative effect and was also made to suffer reduction in seniority substantially, i.e., by thirty places. The interest of the APSRTC was also protected by denying the Conductor monetary benefits. The continuity of service directed to be given was also notional, indicating that it would be taken into account only for pensionary benefits. The Award of the Industrial Tribunal therefore sought to strike a balance between the conflicting interests of the parties. In the aforestated circumstances, I see no reason to interfere with the Award under challenge. The Writ Petition fails and is accordingly dismissed. No costs. ____________________ SANJAY KUMAR, J. 18th December, 2009. VGSR