THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU Writ Petition No.4071 of 2005 ORDER: This writ petition is directed against award, dated 04.08.2004, in I.D.No.208 of 2002, on the file of the learned Industrial Tribunal-cum- Labour Court, Anantapur, wherein the application filed by the petitioner under Section 2(a)(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 challenging the removal order passed by the second respondent vide proceedings No.02/95(106)/2000-TDP, dated 02.12.2000, and seeking a direction to reinstate him into service with continuity of service, full back wages and all other attendant benefits, was dismissed. The petitioner is the workman and the second respondent is the management. It appears, the petitioner joined the second respondent- APSRTC as a Conductor in the year 1987. On 29.05.2000, while conducting bus bearing No.AP9Z 7442, on the route Tadipatri to C.C.Palli, at stage No.4, at about 2230 hrs, the Travelling Ticket Inspectors of Regional Enforcement Squad, Anantapur exercised a check and found certain cash and ticket irregularities and accordingly, issued a charge memo to the petitioner. Basing on the said charge memo, a charge sheet was issued enumerating the following charge: “For having collected the requisite fare amount of Rs.18/- from 4 passengers at boarding point itself and reissued Rs.4-50 denm ticket numbers 131/727197, 131/727198, 131/727199 & 094/728801 to the said four passengers at stage No.01, i.e., Tadipatri in 21-45 hrs., Tadipatri to G.C.Palle Trip (up journey) who boarded the bus at Tadipatri and alighting at Putlur ex.stages 01 to 04, which were already issued, accounted and also exhibited the above said Rs.4-50 denm., ticket issue at stage No.04 in the Service S.R.No.A6/0710718 dt.29.05.2000 in 20-05 hrs., G.C.Palle to Tadipatri Trip (Down journey) by violating Rules in force while you were conducting the vehicle No.AP9Z.7442 on 29.05.2000 on route Tadipatri to G.C.Palle, which constitutes misconduct under Reg.28 (xxiii) of APSRTC Employees (Conduct) Reg.1963.” The petitioner submitted his explanation stating that the passengers referred to in the charge sheet boarded at a garden, that he issued them tickets of Rs.3/- denomination containing Nos.947/177557, 947/177558, 947/177559 and 947/177560, that he had not issued the tickets shown by the said passengers and that the TTIs obtained statements from the passengers and from himself as per their dictation. Since the explanation submitted by the petitioner was not satisfactory, the second respondent ordered for a detailed enquiry. The Enquiry Officer submitted a report holding the charges levelled against the petitioner as proved. Basing on the same, the second respondent passed an order removing the petitioner from service. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner filed an appeal, which was dismissed. Therefore, he filed the present application under Section 2(a)(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Before the Labour Court, it was the case of the petitioner that he had not issued the tickets, which were shown by the passengers. The passengers have shown the tickets, which were issued to them in the previous journey, in confusion, which fact was even stated during the course of domestic enquiry. Therefore, the further enquiry was not properly conducted and even if the charges are proved, they are trivial in nature and such misconduct does not warrant removing the petitioner from service. The second respondent filed a detailed counter affidavit denying the allegations made by the petitioner and stating that this is a case of re-issue of tickets and the petitioner wantonly re-issued the tickets, which were issued in the previous journey, for wrongful gain and therefore, no interference is called for. The Labour Court, after examining the entire material placed before it, came to the conclusion that the charges levelled against the petitioner are proved and that he defrauded the revenues of the Corporation by re-issuing the tickets, which constitutes a serious misconduct. It observed that the previous conduct of the petitioner is not good, as he once removed from service and later on reinstated, and several punishments were imposed for his involvement is cash and ticket irregularity cases. Accordingly, the Labour Court dismissed the I.D., and refused to exercise the discretionary powers vested in it under Section 11-A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. I have given my earnest consideration to the respective submissions made by the learned counsel on either side and perused the material made available on record. From the charge, as noted above, it is clear that the petitioner has re-issued the tickets, which were already accounted for in the previous journey, and collected the correct fare. Therefore, the statement of the passengers during the course of enquiry was not taken into consideration, since it was nothing but an after thought to help the petitioner herein. The spot explanation of the petitioner as well as the passengers would indicate that there was misconduct on the part of the petitioner and that he re-issued the tickets that were already issued and accounted for in the previous journey, which constitutes a serious misconduct. Therefore, I am of the considered opinion that the award passed by the Labour Court does not call for interference by this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The writ petition is devoid of merit and is liable is to be dismissed. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. _______________ (C.V. RAMULU,J) Date: 25.01.2011 VGB