HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.1484 OF 2004 ORDER: The 1st respondent was initially appointed as a Conductor in the APSRTC and thereafter he became Depot Clerk in the year 1997, duly earning promotions and was working in the Shadnagar Depot. On 06-02-1997, he received stock of tickets from the Regional Office and acknowledged the receipt thereof, after verification. However, 70 blocks of tickets of denomination of Rs.10/- (total worth Rs.70,000/-) were found missing. He did not report that fact till 17-02-1987. A charge sheet was issued to him on 11-03-1997 framing relevant charges. The 1st respondent submitted his explanation. Not satisfied with that, the petitioner appointed an Enquiry Officer and taking the report of the Enquiry Officer into account, the petitioner passed an order, dated 27-10-1997, directing removal of the 1st respondent from service. 2. After exhausting the departmental remedies, the 1st respondent filed I.D. No.140 of 2000 before the Labour Court – III, Hyderabad, under Section 2A (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short ‘the ID Act’). The Labour Court passed an award, dated 05-06-2003, setting aside the order of removal. Since the 1st respondent attained the age of suprannuation during the pendency of the I.D, the period between the date of removal and the date of superannuation, was directed to be treated as duty and full back wages were awarded. Petitioner challenges the award. 3. Heard Sri Sunil Kumar Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri P. Vinayaka Swamy, learned counsel for the 1st respondent. 4. One of the duties of the 1st respondent was, to maintain the stock of tickets under security. It is not in dispute that he received the stock of tickets on 06-02-1997. After he acknowledged the receipt of stock, it was found that 70 blocks of tickets, of denomination of Rs.10/-, were missing. The respondent is said to have not reported the fact of missing of tickets to the petitioner immediately. It was only on 17-02- 1997 that the said fact was noticed. On the basis of these allegations, the following charges were framed: “i) For having failed to check the indent No.227/Exp. dt.6.2.97 properly in your duty on 6.2.97, resulting 70 blocks of Rs.10/- demn. is amounting to Rs.70,000/- were missing, which constitutes misconduct under Reg.28 (ix.a) of APSRTC Employees’ (Conduct) Regs.1963. ii) For having failed to inform the missing tickets information till the date of 17.2.97 even though which have been missed through indent No227/Exp. Dt.6.2.97, which constitutes misconduct under Reg.28 (ix.a) of APSRTC Employees (Conduct) Regs.1963. iii) For having slack supervision on the subordinate staff, which constitutes misconduct under Reg.28 (vii) of APSRTC Employees’ (Conduct) Regulations, 1963.” 5. The 1st respondent filed his explanation in the disciplinary proceedings. His plea was that it is the duty of the Assistant Depot Clerk to keep the tickets in a safe condition. The petitioner did not accept that plea, and ultimately an order of removal was passed. 5. The Labour Court was impressed mostly by the fact that the 1st respondent has put in 30 years of service and at the relevant point time he was admitted to hospital and hardly he had 10 months of left over service. Another observation was to the effect that the 1st respondent did not get any financial benefit out of the missing tickets. In a way, it can be said that the Labour Court was not at all consistent in its approach, nor was clear in its findings. Its emphasis was mostly upon the quantum of punishment and it bestowed its attention to the aspect of sympathy. There is no specific finding to the effect that the enquiry proceedings are vitiated or that the findings recorded by the Enquiry Officer are perverse. Assuming that the Labour Court exercised its discretion under Section 11A of the Act, it cannot go to the extent of setting at naught the entire punishment and awarding full back wages. The record discloses that the respondent had since attained the age of superannuation and in compliance with the condition imposed by this Court, while granting interim stay, 50% of the back wages were paid. Hence, the award passed by the Labour Court is modified to the extent of reducing the back wages to 50%. 6. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is partly allowed modifying the award passed by the Labour Court to the extent of reducing the back wages to 50%. There shall be no order as to costs. ____________________ L. NARASIMHA REDDY, J December 30, 2010. KTL