THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU WRIT PETITION No.21407 of 2001 ORDER: The petitioner aggrieved by that portion of the award of the Labour Court-III, Hyderabad in I.D.No.108 of 1995 dated 07.12.1999 denying consequential benefits after reinstatement, filed this writ petition seeking writ of certiorari for quashing that portion of the award denying continuity of service and backwages. The petitioner was working as casual conductor in Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation on daily wage basis. He was conducting the bus from Mahboobnagar to Kosgi on the date of checking the same by the checking staff. Petitioner joined in service only 2 ½ months prior to the said incident. It was found during checking that the petitioner did not issue tickets to four passengers out of whom three passengers were in a group. Charges levelled against the petitioner were as follows: “ 1. For having failed to observe the rule ‘ issue and start’. 2. For having failed to issue tickets to a batch of 3 passengers found alighting at Chinnadarpally stage No.2, having boarded at Mahaboobnagar stage No.1 from whom the requisite fare of 0.75 ps each was already collected by him. 3. For having failed to issue ticket to one passenger found travelling without ticket from Mahaboobnagar to Pilligundle, ex-stages.1 to 2/3 from whom the requisite fare of Rs.1/- was already collected. 4. For having failed to collect the requisite fare and issue tickets to a batch of 3 passengers found travelling from Mahaboobnagar to Mohamadabad ex-stages 1 to 5. 5. For having failed to close the tray numbers of all denominations upto the point of check.” On the basis of Ex.M1 statistical return, Ex.M2 check sheet/Report and Exs M3 and M4 passengers statements and the petitioner’s spot explanations, the management disengaged services of the petitioner as casual conductor on daily wage basis. When the petitioner approached the Labour Court/first respondent, the Labour Court directed the management to reinstate the petitioner into service without any consequential benefits. The petitioner’s counsel contended that the Labour Court should have granted consequential benefits like backwages and continuity of service to the petitioner. When the petitioner was working on daily wage basis and not having regularised service, the question of granting continuity of service or backwages does not arise at all. The petitioner being a casual worker and not regular worker, the question of conducting any domestic enquiry may not arise at all. Since the allegation against the petitioner was that he did not issue tickets to four passengers, and not that he collected money from the passengers without issuing tickets to them, the Labour Court was generous in directing the reinstatement of the petitioner, even though he did not put in 240 days of continuous service by the date of his disengagement. I see absolutely no error of law on the part of the Labour Court in not ordering backwages and continuity of service to the petitioner. In the result, the writ petition is dismissed with costs. ______________________________ SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU,J 03.12.2010 lvl THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU WRIT PETITION No.21407 of 2001 Dt.03.12.2010