HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION No.7272 of 2001 ORDER: Aggrieved by the award of the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Warangal, in I.D.No.258 of 1993, the petitioner, a conductor with APSRTC, has invoked the jurisdiction of this Court to the limited extent he was denied back wages and attendant benefits. While the petitioner was conducting the bus on 6.3.1993 between Parkal to Hanamkonda a check was exercised at stage No.5 and a charge memo was issued wherein the following charges were leveled against him. “1. For having violated the rule “Issue and start” 2. A passenger boarded the bus at Cudepad and alighting without tickets at Urugonda ex-stages 4 to 5 to whom you have tried to hand over a ticket bearing No.483/731232 of Rs.1-50 deno. On sighting the checking officials only punching on stage no.4 as boarding stage and stageno.4 also as alighting stage instead of punching on stgeno.5 and in spite of collecting the requisite fare amount of Rs.1-50 at his boarding stage itself, which amounts to mis-conduct under Reg.No.28(vi)(a) of APSRTC Employees (Conduct) Reg. 1963. 3. For having failed to close the tray numbers of all the deno. Against stage no.5” A departmental enquiry was held and, thereafter, the petitioner was imposed the penalty of removal from service. Aggrieved thereby, he invoked the jurisdiction of the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court under Section 2-A(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act. The Tribunal observed as under: “I have perused the entire enquiry record leading to the proceedings of removal on 01- 11-1993. The proceedings dated 01-11-1993 showed that in the instant case the conductor collected the fare of RS.1-50 ps and delayed to issue the ticket, in the mean time check took place at ‘Urugonda’. The version of the conductor is that he was demanding the remaining fare of 50 paise, as the requisite fare was Rs.1-50 paise, from the boarding place to the alighting place and as the passenger was delaying in tendering the rest of the fare amount, there was delay in issuing tickets. This contention was not accepted by the enquiry officer and the charge is held proved by the enquiry officer. As the version of the conductor was not accepted he was removed from service. It is clear from the spot explanation of the conductor that he was demanding 50 paise, the rest of the fare amount from the passenger, in the meantime the check took place and the “Urugonda” stage has arrived and on seeing the checking officials due to confusion he has not closed the S.R. and there was no mala fide intention that can be attributed to the conductor and the same explanation was given by conductor on 16.8.1993 to the charge sheet issued to him on 10.6.1993. The conductor submitted that he has not created any story and his spot explanation proves the fact that the passenger has not tendered the correct fare and he was demanding the rest of the fare amount of 50 paise. It has also been brought out on record that the distance between stage nos. 4 and 5 is only some furlong, it is not even one kilometer. During the enquiry also the conductor pleaded that the passenger was quarrelling with him to pay the rest of 50 paise towards the fare amount; after paying Rs.1/-. It is an admitted fact that charge No.2 passenger is an illiterate passenger and the conductor might have demanded the rest of the fare amount of Rs.0-50 ps and while that quarrel is going on with the passenger, the check took place in the bus and the bus moved only to some furlong and the running time was ‘two to three minutes”. It is also an admitted fact that the conductor was in the act of issuing tickets at the time of the check and he was handing over the ticket to charge No.2 passenger at “Urugonda” meanwhile check took place and “Urugonda” stage has arrived. Since he has not completed the ticket issues by that time, the bus reached stage no.5 naturally the tray numbers were not closed in the S.R. With regard to charge No.1 violating rule of “issue and start’, it is not a mandatory rule to issue all the tickets and start the bus and before the bus reaches next stage, the ticket issues can be completed, and the rule is directory and not to be complied in all the circumstances. The explanation of the conductor is plausible and can be accepted under the circumstances. 7. For the foregoing discussion, I hold that charge No.2 is trivial in nature and for this lapse the conductor ought not have been removed from service, in as much as there was no past mis-conduct reported as against the petitioner in the re-joinder submitted by the respondent. Conversely; having regard to the statement of the passenger that he paid Rs.1-50 ps at the boarding point only, I feel, withholding of back wages is appropriate punishment in this case to met the ends of justice.” Consequently an award was passed setting aside the impugned order of removal of the petitioner from service, and the respondent APRTC was directed to reinstate him as a conductor with continuity of service but without back wages and attendant benefits. The jurisdiction which the Tribunal exercises, under Section 11- A of the Industrial Disputes Act, is both to reappreciate the evidence on record as also to go into the quantum of punishment. On charge No.1, the Tribunal merely notes the findings of the enquiry officer, and has neither re-appreciated the evidence on record not has it recorded an independent finding as to whether or not the passenger has paid the entire fare of Rs.1-50 ps. The Tribunal does not, however, disbelieve the contention of the petitioner that the passenger had paid only Rs.1.00 and, when he was insisting on payment of the remaining amount of Rs.0-50 ps, the check took place; and the distance between the place where the passenger had entered the bus, and the spot where the check was exercised, was merely a distance of less than a kilometer, and the running time was between two to three minutes. While holding that charge No.2 was trivial in nature and, for the loss, the conductor ought not be removed from service, more so, as there was no past misconduct committed by him, the Tribunal curiously holds that conversely having regard to the statement of the passenger that he had paid Rs.1-50 ps at the boarding point only, withholding of back wages was the appropriate punishment. While exercising jurisdiction under Section 11-A of the Act, it was incumbent on the Tribunal to record a finding as to whether or not the passenger had in fact paid Rs.1-50 ps or whether the version of the petitioner that only Rs.1.00 was paid, and the balance Rs.0-50 ps was still due, merited acceptance. Further, while the punishment of removal from service was imposed on 1.11.1993 the award was passed on 18.7.1995 thereby the petitioner was denied back wages for a period of more than one year seven months. I have no hesitation in agreeing with the submission of M/s. M. Swathi Goud, Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, that denial of back wages for a period of one year and seven months for the trivial charges in the charge memo is a punishment which shocks the conscience of this Court . I consider it appropriate, therefore, to set aside the award to the limited extent the petitioner was denied back wages and attendant benefits, and remand the matter back for reconsideration afresh by the Tribunal which shall reappreciate the evidence on record, record its findings on each of the charges, and re-examine the quantum of punishment in exercise of its jurisdiction under Section 11-A of the Act. Since the award has not been questioned by the APSRTC, it is made clear that, in so far as the petitioner’s reinstatement and continuity of service is concerned, the matter has attained finality and the Tribunal would only examine the punishment substituted by it with denial of back wages and attendant benefits. The entire exercise in this regard shall be completed by the Tribunal within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The Writ Petition stands disposed of accordingly. No costs. _________ 10-02-2011 asp