THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. RAMULU W.P.No.26060 of 1998 ORAL ORDER: This Writ Petition is filed challenging the Award dated 15-4- 1997 made in I.D.No.72 of 1994 on the file of Industrial Tribunal-cum- Labour Court, Godavarikhani sofar as denying back wages for the period he was out of service etc. It appears, petitioner was working as a Conductor with the 2nd respondent-Depot Manager, A.P. State Road Transport Corporation, Godavarikhani. According to the petitioner, he had put in unblemish service. While so, on 18-1-1994 when he was conducting the bus from Bhadrachalam to Godavarikhani, a check was exercised at stage No.9 (near Kaman, Karimnagar Town). The checking officials found that one passenger, namely, Krishna, was travelling beyond his destination. He got into the bus at Bhadrachalam and was supposed to get down at Huzurabad (stage No.8). Instead of that, he travelled upto stage No.9. While he was getting down the bus, it was found that he was travelling without ticket from Huzurabad to Karimnagar. For the said misconduct, a charge sheet was issued stating that the petitioner did not issue tickets and allowed a passenger to travel beyond his destination and further, he had beaten the passenger for not taking ticket beyond stage No.8 to stage No.9 and he left the place and did not remit the money also immediately. After conducting a detailed enquiry, he was removed from service. Questioning the same, he raised a dispute under Section 2-A(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act,1947 before the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Godavarikhani stating that the enquiry was not properly conducted and the charges are baseless and even assuming that the charges are proved, the punishment of dismissal from service is disproportionate to that of the misconduct. A detailed counter was filed by the management before the Labour Court denying the allegations made by the petitioner. Before the Labour Court, no oral or documentary evidence was let in by the workman. On behalf of the management, though no oral evidence was let in, marked documents Exs.M1 and M2. After a detailed consideration of the entire material placed before it, Labour Court came to the conclusion that though the charges were proved, the punishment of dismissal from service is disproportionate to the misconduct proved and as such, directed the management to reinstate the petitioner with continuity of service and attendant benefits in respect of increments only and without any back wages, while withholding two increments. Heard both sides. On appreciation of the material placed before the Labour Court, it was held that beating of the passenger and other misconduct are the result of the illhealth of the petitioner, being a B.P. patient; therefore, they cannot be taken seriously. Of course, the charges as to depositing the amounts late as well as not issuing tickets were proved. But, the passenger statement, as seen from the records of the Labour Court, would indicate that the passenger himself has stated that he had taken ticket upto Huzurabad and did not know the Huzurabad station; therefore, by mistake, he came upto Karimnagar. When check had taken place at Karimnagar Kaman, he was not having ticket from Huzurabad to Karimnagar. Therefore, the checking officials collected the requisite fare and got issued a ticket to him. Except this, no allegations have been made against the petitioner. May be, the petitioner beat the said passenger, since he was travelling beyond his permissible travel. The fact that the petitioner is a B.P. patient and, therefore, it has resulted in beating of the passenger and other misconduct enumerated in the charge sheet is not in dispute. Strictly speaking, there is no misconduct on the part of the petitioner. It is, in fact, a mistake of the passenger. He was holding ticket upto stage No.8, but had travelled upto stage No.9. May be because of his B.P. and other things the petitioner could not tolerate; therefore, he might have beaten the passenger. In the facts and circumstances of the case, Labour Court, while denying back wages and other attendant benefits ought not to have further directed the management to impose punishment of stoppage of two increments with cumulative effect. This is not in consonance with the gravity of the misconduct alleged against the petitioner. In fact, though the misconduct is relatable to the checking, charges were framed against him for the improper conduct on his part. Therefore, that portion of the Award withholding two increments with cumulative effect by way of penalty shall stand deleted. Under those circumstances, I deem it appropriate to modify the Award passed by the Labour Court to the following effect: “In the result, the respondent-management is directed to reinstate the petitioner with continuity of service and attendant benefits in respect of increments only; however, without any back wages.” With the above modification of the impugned Award, the Writ Petition is disposed of. No order as to costs. 30-01-2008 prk