IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE TWENTY THIRD DAY OF MARCH, TWO THOUSAND NINE PRESENT: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.5587 of 2009 Between: The Depot Manager, APSRTC, Parvathipuram Depot. ..... Petitioner AND Botcha Gowri Naidu & another. .....Respondents Counsel for the petitioner : Sri C. Appaiah Sharma This Court made the following: THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.5587 of 2009 ORDER:- This writ petition is filed for a Writ of Certiorari to quash award dated 04.08.2008 in I.D.No.117 of 2005 on the file of respondent No.2. Heard Sri C. Appaiah Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record. Respondent No.1 was working in the petitioner’s Corporation as conductor since 16.12.1987. While he was conducting vehicle No.AP 10Z 160 from Visakhapatnam to Neelakantapuram, the TTIs of the Regional Enforcement Squad, Vizianagaram, exercised a check at Narsipuram stage and found that the petitioner collected a police warrant bearing No.722215 from police constable, who boarded the bus at Vizianagaram and bound for Parvathipuram, and failed to issue ticket to him. The further accusation against respondent No.1 was that he gave unconnected ticket bearing No.221/879667 of Rs.6/- denomination on the TRAC foil of police warrant and ticket No.285/848509 of Rs.20/- denomination. Disciplinary proceedings were initiated against respondent No.1 on the basis of the said irregularity and he was removed from service having been found guilty of misconduct. Respondent No.1 then moved respondent No.2 under Section 2A(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short, ‘the Act’). Respondent No.2, while concurring with the finding of guilt of respondent No.1 by the domestic tribunal, however, applied doctrine of proportionality and held that the penalty of removal from service is disproportionate to the gravity of irregularity. On that reasoning the said penalty was modified into one of withholding of annual increments for a period of two years with cumulative effect besides denying respondent No.1 back wages and continuity of service. Assailing this award, respondent No.1 filed this writ petition. The learned Standing counsel for the petitioner submitted that the award of respondent No.2 suffers from illegality. He submitted that having held that the finding of the domestic tribunal against respondent No.1 regarding misconduct was correct, respondent No.2 was not justified in interfering with the quantum of the punishment. I have carefully considered the submissions of the learned Standing counsel. Section 11(A) of the Act vests power in the Labour Courts/Tribunals to set aside the order of discharge or dismissal, if they are satisfied that such orders were not justified and direct reinstatement of the workman on such terms and conditions as they think fit. Ordinarily, the punishment imposed by the domestic tribunals on the finding of proven misconduct, shall not be interfered with by the Labour Courts/Tribunals. But, by virtue of Section 11A, certain amount of discretion is vested in the Labour Courts/Tribunals to reduce the quantum of punishment wherever, for valid reasons, they are satisfied that the punishment imposed is disproportionate to the gravity of misconduct. When once such discretion is exercised, this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution would not normally interfere with such exercise of discretion, unless the reasoning of the Labour Courts/Tribunals is either perverse or patently erroneous or otherwise unsustainable in law. (see Managing Director, Balasaheb Desai Sahakari S.K. Limited v. Kashinath Ganapati Kambale[1]). A perusal of the award of respondent No.2 shows that though not many reasons have been given, it can easily be culled out there from that the domestic tribunal was of the view that the punishment of removal was disproportionate to the gravity of misconduct. De hors the reasoning of respondent No.2, even on an independent examination of the facts, in my considered view, the misconduct of respondent No.1 in giving unconnected tickets of Rs.6/- and Rs.20/- denomination may not be of so grave as to warrant his removal from service. I may hasten to add that generally it is the propensity of the workman to commit misconduct, which is relevant rather than the amount involved in misappropriation. However, on the facts of the case, respondent No.2 has exercised its discretion by modifying the punishment of removal from service to that of withholding of annual increments for a period of two years with cumulative effect, which is also a major penalty besides denying respondent No.1 of back wages and continuity of service. For the misdemeanor respondent No.1 is found to have indulged in, he suffered adequate punishment. In this view of the matter, I am not inclined to exercise the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court to interfere with the Labour Court’s award. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. As a sequel to dismissal of the writ petition, WPMP.No.7310 of 2009 filed by the petitioner for interim relief is also dismissed. ____________________________ C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Date: 23.03.2009 ES [1] (2009) 2 SCC 288