IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION NO : 25185 of 1998 Between: K. Nellur S/o. Dubbayya R/o. Medak. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Labour Court-Hyderabd-Ii Represented by its Presiding Officer, Chandra Vihar Building, Fourth Floor, M.J.Road, Hyderabad. 2 The Depot Manager, A.P.State Road Transport Corporation, Bodhan Depot, Bodhan, Nizamabad 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 an appropriate Writ, Order or Direction, particularly one in the nature of Writ of Certiorari and quash the award passed by the ﬁrst Respondent in I.D.No. 55 of 1994 dated 8th January, 1997 in so far as it relates to denying of back wages, continuity of service and other attendant beneﬁts and consequently to direct the 2nd respondent to pay back wages with continuity of service and other attendant beneﬁts and grant all consequential benefits. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.A.K.JAYAPRAKASH RAO Counsel for the Respondent No.1: GP FOR LABOUR Counsel for the Respondent No.2: Smt.B.G.UMADEVI The Court made the following : THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION No.25185 OF 1998 ORDER: The Award of the Labour Court, Hyderabad in I.D.No.55 of 1994 dated 08.01.1997 is questioned by the petitioner in the present writ petition. 2. The petitioner was removed from service as the charges levelled against him had been established in a disciplinary enquiry. Aggrieved thereby, he invoked the jurisdiction of the Labour Court under Section 2-A (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act and the Tribunal in its Award set aside the order of removal and directed Respondent No.2 to appoint the petitioner herein as a fresh candidate but without any beneﬁts like continuity of service and back-wages. Aggrieved thereby, the present writ petition. 3. The petitioner was charged of having issued three tickets of Rs.40/- each in combination with Rs.3/- denomination tickets and to failed to enter details of these three tickets, of Rs.40/- each, in the S.R. He is further said to have punched the tickets as Stage No.23 to 5 i.e., the down- ward journey instead of 5 to 23 i.e. upward journey. The enquiry oﬃcer found him guilty of the charges. The disciplinary authority, taking into consideration the spot explanation of three passengers that they had boarded the bus at Nizamabad and had paid Rs.43/- each, totalling to Rs.129/- held that the charge was established. The disciplinary authority disbelieved the petitioner’s contention that the mistake had occurred due to heavy rush. He held that the advance punching of Rs.40/- denomination tickets, and not accounting for them in the S.R, clearly showed the conductor’s malaﬁde intention. The petitioner was found guilty of all the three charges levelled against him. 4. While Sri A.K.Jayaprakash Rao, learned Counsel for the petitioner, would contend that a small error in failing to properly punch the tickets, and in failing to record the same in the S.R, would not justify imposition of a deterrent punishment of being appointed afresh, thereby obliterating his entire service in the Corporation besides denying him back- wages. 5. Smt. B.G.Uma Devi, learned Standing Counsel for the Corporation, would contend that the very fact that the petitioner was found guilty of having punched the S.R. as from stage 23 to stage 5 instead of from stage 5 to stage 23, coupled with his failure to enter the same in the S.R. clearly showed his malaﬁde intention of collecting the tickets from passengers, using them on the return journey, and misappropriating the funds of the Corporation in the process. Learned Counsel would submit that the Labour Court, in fact, had shown undue lenience in directing appointment of the petitioner afresh and that it is well settled, by a catena of judgments of the Supreme Court, that even in cases of cash and ticket irregularities, including misappropriation of small amounts, Courts should be slow in interfering with the punishment imposed by the Corporation terminating the services of such conductors. 6. A perusal of the Award would clearly show that the Labour Court, except stating that the punishment was disproportionate on the totality of the facts and circumstances, and having due regard to the nature of duties discharged by the petitioner, has not assigned any reasons as to why it thought it ﬁt to interfere with the quantum of punishment. While, under Section 11-A of the Industrial Disputes Act, the Labour Court, no doubt, has been conferred the power to interfere with the quantum of punishment even if the charge levelled against the delinquent-employee is held established, such interference cannot be as a matter of course or on misplaced sympathy. It is only for just and valid reasons to be recorded in writing that the Labour Court would be justiﬁed in interfering with the punishment imposed by the employer. Since the Labour Court has not given any reasons for interfering with the quantum of punishment, I was inclined to set aside the Award and remand the matter back to the Labour Court to examine the proportionality of the punishment. Sri A.K.Jayaprakash Rao, learned Counsel for the petitioner, would, however, request this Court not to do so and submit that, if the matter was remanded, the petitioner would run the risk of suﬀering a more severe punishment than what has been presently imposed by the Labour Court. Since the Award has not been challenged by the Corporation, it would suﬃce if the writ petition ﬁled by the petitioner- workman, challenging the Award of the Labour Court, is dismissed. 7. The Writ Petition is, accordingly, dismissed. However, in the circumstances, without costs. ____________________________ RAMESH RANGANATHAN,J Date: 24-07-2008 GS