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 : 36970 of 1998 Between: The Depot Manager, A.P.S.R.T.C. Bus Depot, Medak. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 M.V. Ramulu, E. 290806, S/o. Sri M. Nagaiah Village, Post: Chandiapet, via Makrajpet Mandal, Chegunta, Medak - 502 247 2 The Presiding Officer, Labour Court-II, Hyderabad. .....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 to call for the records relating to the award in I.D.No. 45/95 dated 6.3.97 on the file of the Labour Court-II, Hyderabad and quash the same as arbitrary, illegal by way of issue of writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ or order or orders as the Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case Counsel for the Petitioner:SMT.B.G.UMA DEVI Counsel for the Respondent No.: MR.R.N.REDDY The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION No. 36970 of 1998 ORDER: The Depot Manager, Medak has invoked the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India aggrieved by the Award of the Labour Court in I.D. No. 45 of 1995 dated 06.03.1997, whereby the first respondent-workman was directed to be reinstated into service with continuity of service but without back wages. The first respondent, a conductor with the APSRTC, was conducting a bus on 13.02.1993 from Changunta-Chandipet when the bus was checked for certain cash and ticket irregularities. A charge memo was issued on 27.02.1993 wherein the following two charges were framed against the first respondent. 1. For having re-issued ticket NO. 064/948358 to 360 of Rs.2/- deno. To 3 passengers, who were found alighting at Sivanur having bounded the bus at Nasaipet, ex-stage Nos. 8 and 7/8 respectively, duly collecting the requisite fare of Rs.1.50 petitioners deno. Each from them, where as the above three tickets wee already issued by you at Stage No. 6 and accounted against stage No. 7 which constitutes mis-conduct under Reg. NO. 28 (xxiii) of APSRTC Employees (Conduct) Reg. 1963. 2. For having re-issued tickets No. 064/948361 and 362 of Rs.2/- deno. To two passengers who were traveling from Nasapet to Gopalapuram, ex-stages 7/8 to 8/9 duly collecting the requisite fare of Rs.2/- each from them, whereas the above two tickets were already issued by you at stage No. 6 and accounts against stage No. 7 which constitutes misconduct under Reg. Stage No. 28 (xxiii) of APSRTC (Employees) Conduct, Reg. 1963. On the enquiry officer holding him guilty of the charge, the disciplinary authority, vide proceedings dated 25.06.1993, imposed on him the punishment of removal from service. The appeal filed thereagainst was dismissed resulting in the first respondent invoking the jurisdiction of the Labour Court under Section 2-A(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act. The Labour Court, while concurring with the conclusions of the enquiry officer that the charges were established, however chose to interfere with the quantum of punishment on the ground that the amount involved was paltry and that the punishment was harsh. The charges held established against the petitioner are of his having re- issued tickets of Rs. 2 to 3 passengers by collecting the requisite fare. In effect the first respondent had utilized the tickets issued to passengers earlier for being re-issued to the passengers traveling in the bus when the check was exercised. The charges held established, in effect, are of defalcation of money of the corporation and that the first respondent had not issued the correct tickets to the passengers despite collecting the fare. As noted by the Labour Court the stand of the workman was prevaricating. Once such grave and serious charges of defalcation of public money are held established the Labour Court ought not to have shown undue indulgence in interfering with the punishment of removal from service. The conductors of the APSRTC work in fiduciary capacity. In Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation Vs. B.S. Hullikatti[1], the Supreme Court observed that it was the responsibility of bus conductor to collect correct fares from the passengers and deposit the same in the Corporation, that conductors act in a fiduciary capacity, that it would be gross misconduct if, knowingly, they did not collect any fare or the correct amount of fare and that, in such cases, interference with the punishment of dismissal from service was a case of misplaced sympathy by the Labour Court. I n Regional Manager, Rajastan State Road Transport Corporation Vs. Ghanshyam Sharma[2], the Supreme Court held that the proved acts amounted either to a case of dishonesty or of gross negligence and bus conductors, who by their actions or inactions cause financial loss to the Corporation, were not fit to be retained in service. In V. Ramana Vs. A.P.S.R.T.C.[3], the Supreme Court held that Courts/Tribunals should not interfere unless the punishment imposed by the disciplinary authority or the appellate authority shocks the conscience of the Court/Tribunal. While the labour Court undoubtedly has the power under Section 11-A of the Industrial Disputes Act to interfere with the quantum of punishment, the discretion has to be exercised only on a clear case for interference having been made out and not on the grounds of misplaced sympathy or as a matter of course. The Labour Court, in the present case, has shown undue indulgence in favour of the first respondent-workman. Employees who indulge in such corrupt practices ought not to be shown undue lenience and must be dealt with sternly. I consider it appropriate, therefore, to set aside the award of the Labour Court only to the extent of its interference with the quantum of punishment. The matter is remanded back to the Labour Court for its consideration under Section 11-A of the Industrial Disputes Act only on the quantum of punishment. Since the dispute relates to the year 1995, and nearly thirteen years has elapsed since then, it is but appropriate that the matter be heard as expeditiously as possible in any event not later than four months from the date of receipt of the copy of the order. The Labour Court shall examine the quantum of punishment after hearing both sides and pass an award afresh in accordance with law. Needless to state that, since the first respondent is continuing in service, status quo as on today shall be maintained till the labour Court passes an award afresh in accordance with law. The writ petition is disposed of accordingly. No costs. _______________________________ Date: 02.04.2008 RAMESH RANGANATHAN, J MRKR To 1.2CCs to 2.2CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WP{GSNM} [1] AIR 2001 SC 930 [2] 2002(1) LLJ 234 [3] AIR 2005 SC 3417