IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) SATURDAY, THE NINETEENTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU WRIT PETITION NO : 8476 of 2002 Between: G.Venkata Sesha Reddy, S/o. G.Venkata Reddy, R/o. Tallaproddatur Village, R.S.kondapuram Mandal, Cuddapah District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Depot Manager, A.P.S.R.T.C, Jammalamadugu, Cuddapah District. 2 The Deputy Chief Traffic Manager, A.P.S.R.T.C, Cuddapah. 3 The Regional Manager, A.P.S.R.T.C, Cuddapah, Cuddapah District. 4 The Chairman cum Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal cum Labour Court, Anantapur, Anantapur District. .....RESPONDENT(S) 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 issue a Writ or order or direction more particularly one in the nature Writ of Certiorari calling for the records pertaining to I(.D.No.144/99 on the file of the Industrial Tribunal cum Labour Court, Anantapur and Quash the same as illegal, and contrary to law and consequently direct the respondents to reinstate the petitioner herein with continuity of service and with all back wages and pass Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.N.PARAMESWARA REDDY Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR LABOUR The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU WRIT PETITION No. 8476 of 2002 ORDER This writ petition is filed challenging the award made in I.D.No.144 of 1999, dated 8.1.2002 on the file of the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Anantapur. Petitioner is the workman. Respondent Nos.1 to 3 are the Management. It appears that the petitioner was working as a Conductor in the respondent- Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation at Jammalamadugu Depot. On 12.3.1998, while he was conducting bus from Jammalamadugu to Tirumalayapalli, a check was exercised by the checking officials of the Corporation and found some cash and ticket irregularities and on the basis of the charge memo issued by the checking officials, a charge sheet was issued to the petitioner enumerating the following charges. “For having failed to collect the fare and issue tickets to two individual passengers who boarded your bus at Jammalamadugu and found alighting at Ponnampalli ex stages 1 to 5 which constitutes misconduct under Reg.28(vi-a) of APSRTC Employees (conduct) Reg.1963. For having failed to issue tickets to the passengers luggage of 10 units (rice bags) even after collecting Rs.10/- from them towards luggage and passenger tickets for two passengers at the boarding point itself, who were travelling with passenger tickets No.493/671425 and 426 of Rs.2-50 denm., each from Torrivemula to Poonampalli ex-stages 4 to 5 which constitutes misconduct under Reg.28 (vi-a) of APSRTC Employees (Conduct) Reg.1963. For having failed to account the ticket issues of Rs.5/- denm., in the S.R.No.A4/6436831 dt.12-3-1998 though you have issued to the passengers at the boarding point itself who were travelling with tickets No.067/05105 to 153 of Rs.5/- denm, E.48 from Jammalamadugu to Ponnampalli ex-stages 1 to 5, though the vehicle reached stage No.5 which constitutes misconduct under Reg.28 (xxxii) of APSRTC Employees (conduct) Regulations, 1963. For having failed to account the tickets issues of Rs.6/- denm tickets in the S.R.No.A4/6436831 dt.12.3.98 though you have issued to the passengers at the boarding point itself, who were travelling with tickets No.223/469183 to 504 of Rs.6/- E.21 from Jammalamadugu to Ramachandraiahpalli ex-stages 1 to 6 though the vehicle reached stage No.5, which constitutes a misconduct under Reg.28 (xxxii) of APSRTC Employees (conduct) Reg.1963. For having failed to account the tickets issues of Rs.2-50 denm tickets in the S.R,.No.A4/6436831 dt.12.3.98 though you have issued to the passengers at the boarding point itself who were travelling with tickets No.493/671426 to 437 of Rs.2-50denm, E.12 though the vehicle reached stage No.5, which constitutes misconduct under Reg.28(xxxii) of APSRTC Employees (conduct) Reg.1963. For having violated the rule Issue and start which constitutes misconduct under Reg.28 (xxxii) of APSRTC Employees (Conduct) Reg.1963. For having failed to issue tickets referred in Charge No.1 and also failed to account in the SR of all denomination from stage No.4 to 5 though you have reached the stage No.5, which constitutes misconduct under Reg.28 (xxxii) of APSRTC Employees (Conduct) Regulations, 1963.” After conducting a detailed enquiry into the said charges, the petitioner was removed from service. Aggrieved thereby, petitioner raised a dispute under Section 2-A (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short ‘the Act’) before the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Anantapur. Before the Labour Court, it was the contention of the petitioner that the charges are trivial in nature and the enquiry was not properly conducted. Even assuming that the charges are proved, the punishment of removal from service was disproportionate to that of the misconduct alleged. Respondent-Management filed a detailed counter denying the allegations made by the petitioner. It was asserted that the enquiry was properly done by giving full opportunity to the petitioner to defend himself and the punishment of removal from service cannot be said to be either arbitrary, illegal or disproportionate to that of the misconduct alleged against him. The labour Court after a detailed consideration of the entire material placed before it, came to the conclusion that the charges are proved and the petitioner does not deserve any relief whatsoever and dismissed the application filed by the petitioner. Aggrieved thereby, the present writ petition is filed. Learned counsel for the petitioner strenuously contended that the labour Court has not properly appreciated the facts and circumstances of the case. At the time when the petitioner was conducting bus, there were 90 passengers and there was no allegation that petitioner has not issued any tickets by collecting money or he has issued any less denomination tickets. Though the petitioner issued tickets properly, they were not noted in the SR, as required, due to heavy rush of 90 passengers in the bus particularly in the late hours i.e., 18-50 hours. Even assuming that the charges are proved, the labour Court ought not to have dismissed the petition in toto. Therefore, the labour Court has neither appreciated the evidence properly nor exercised the discretion vested in it under Section 11-A of the Act. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent strenuously contended that in spite of several punishments, petitioner did not mend his ways and involved in such cash and ticket irregularities and, therefore, the labour Court has come to the conclusion that the charges are grave in nature and the petitioner does not deserve any relief as sought for and accordingly dismissed the application filed by the petitioner under Section 2-A(2) of the Act. I have given my earnest consideration to the respective submissions made by the learned counsel on either side and perused the impugned award and other material made available on record. It cannot be said that the charges are not grave in nature but the circumstances under which the misconduct was detected seems to be of little consideration. At the time of check, as many as 90 passengers were there in the bus and bus was jam packed and it was evening of the day and the petitioner was not able to move within the bus and thus though he collected money and issued tickets the same were not noted in the SR. Insofar as charge Nos.3 to 5 are concerned, though the petitioner has collected money and issued tickets, they were not noted in the SR. Insofar as charge No.2 is concerned, though he has collected money of Rs.10/- he did not issue ticket for the luggage. The explanation of the petitioner is that there were 9 passengers and it was dusk and therefore, he was not able to move in the bus and under those circumstances those irregularities were committed. I am of the considered opinion that in the service of a conductor such allegations and punishments are very common. The labour Court ought to have taken into consideration the very circumstances which resulted in the misconduct and framing of charges. As already stated, the bus was jam packed with 9 passengers and it was very difficult to move from one end to other end and though he had collected money, it was also difficult for him to enter the same in the SR. Insofar as charge No.1 is concerned, neither the petitioner has collected money nor issued tickets. Coming to charge No.2, though he has collected the money, he did not issue luggage tickets. Under those circumstances, the labour Court could not have been so harsh to the petitioner who had put in 10 years of service by that time, even if the charges are proved. In the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the opinion that the labour Court ought to have exercised its powers under Section 11-A of the Act and granted relief of reinstatement while denying all other benefits. Therefore, I deem it appropriate to modify the award passed by the labour Court as under: “In the result, the respondent-Management is directed to reinstate the petitioner-workman into service afresh as Conductor. However, it is made clear that the petitioner-workman is not entitled for any back wages or attendant benefits whatsoever. The services rendered by the petitioner prior to his removal shall be taken into consideration for the purpose of retiral benefits.” With the above modification, the writ petition is disposed of. No costs. _________ 19-04-2008 rkk ..... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1 The Depot Manager, A.P.S.R.T.C, Jammalamadugu, Cuddapah District. 2 The Deputy Chief Traffic Manager, A.P.S.R.T.C, Cuddapah. 3 The Regional Manager, A.P.S.R.T.C, Cuddapah, Cuddapah District. 4 The Chairman cum Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal cum Labour Court, Anantapur, Anantapur District. 5.2CD copies