IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE TWENTY FIFTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.23635 of 2007 Between: 1 APSRTC., rep. by its Divisional Manager, Medak Division, Sangareddy. 2 The Depot Manager, APSRTC, Sangareddy Depot, Medak District. ..... PETITIONERS AND 1 M.Mallesh S/o.late Vittal H.No.5-8-124/18, Narayanreddy Colony, Sangareddy, Medak District. 2 The Labour Court-II, Hyderabad rep. by its Presiding Officer. .....RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed herein the High Court may be pleased to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction especially one in the nature of a Writ of Certiorari calling for the records relating to the impugned Award dated 17.8.2005 made in I.D.No.70/2004, the Labour Court-II, Hyderabad published on 30.11.2005 in G.O.Rt.No.1914, allowing the petition in part and directing the petitioners herein to reinstate the 1st Respondent into service with continuity of service but without back wages and attendant benefits and quash the same as being bad, illegal, without jurisdiction and invalid and pass such other order or orders in the interest of justice. Counsel for the Petitioners: SMT.B.G.UMA DEVI Counsel for the Respondent No.1:Sri V.Narasimha Goud Counsel for the Respondent No.2: GP FOR LABOUR The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.23635 of 2007 ORDER: This writ petition is filed assailing the award, dated 17.08.2005, in I.D.No.70 of 2004, passed by the Industrial Tribunal-II, Hyderabad. The first respondent is a conductor in Sangareddy depot of APSRTC. On 29.03.2001, while he was conducting a bus in between Regode and Sangareddy, a check was conducted between stages 17 and 16. It was alleged that the first respondent failed to issue tickets to three lady passengers, even after collecting Rs.3/- from each of them. Three charges, in relation to the same incident, were framed and departmental enquiry was conducted. Ultimately, through the order dated 21.06.2001, the second petitioner removed the first respondent from service. Aggrieved thereby, the first respondent availed the remedies of appeal and review, but unsuccessfully. Thereafter, he filed I.D.No.70 of 2004 under Section 2-A(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The Tribunal found that charges 1 and 3 were proved, but not charge No.2. It set aside the order of removal and directed reinstatement of the first respondent without back wages, but with continuity of service. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the observations made by the Labour Court are self-contradictory, and the insistence on examination of passengers is contrary to the law laid down by the Supreme Court in KSRTC v. A.T.MANE[1]. Sri V.Narasimha Goud, learned counsel for the first respondent, on the other hand, submits that the sole basis for issuance of charge sheet to the first respondent is on the allegation of collection of fare and failure to issue tickets to three passengers, and once that charge was hold not proved, his client, in fact, was entitled to be reinstated with all consequential benefits, including back wages. He contends that the award passed by the Labour Court does not suffer from any legal or factual infirmity. The three charges framed against the first respondent read as under: “ Charge No.1: “For having failed to observe the rule ‘Issue and Start’ which constitutes misconduct under Reg.28(xxxii) of APSRTC Employees (Conduct) Reg. 1963” Charge No.2: “For having failed to issue tickets to three (3) lady passengers, in spite of collecting the requisite fare @ Rs.3/- each who boarded the bus at Regode and found alighting without tickets at Kondapur Ex-Stages 17 to 16, which constitutes misconduct under Reg.28 (vi-a) of APSRTC Employees (Conduct) Reg.1963.” Charge No.3: “For having closed only three denominations in SR at stage No.16 and failed to close remaining denominations which constitutes misconduct under Reg.28(xxxi) of APSRTC Employees (Conduct)Reg.1963”.” The actual gravity is in charge No.2, and Charges 1 and 3 relate only to compliance with the procedure. It is no doubt true that in the judgment, referred to above, the Supreme Court held that it is not necessary for State Road Transport Corporation to examine the passengers from, whom the fare was said to have been collected by the conductor; in the course of a domestic enquiry. In other words, the employee cannot insist on examination of passengers, from whom he is said to have collected the fare. In the instant case, the Labour Court itself expressed doubt, as to the genuinity of the statement recorded by the checking officials from the passengers. Specific observations made to the effect that thumb impressions of the persons were obtained on a blank paper, and at a later point of time, the matter was written upon it. When such is the case, heavy burden rested upon the petitioners to prove the genuinity of the statement, though not in the context of the right of the first respondent, but to satisfy the Labour Court. When no efforts were made by the petitioners to satisfy the Labour Court as to the genuinity of the documents filed by them, it cannot be said that the Labour Court committed any mistake in recording a finding on charge No.2. It was the consistent case of the first respondent that he did not collect fare from the said three passengers at all. The Labour Court took note of this fact and observed that even this failure would amount to a minor misconduct and accordingly, denied him the back wages. In that view of the matter, it can be safely said that the Labour Court had maintained a decent balance between the interests of Corporation on one hand, and the interest of the employee, on the other. While it has set aside an otherwise illegal order, it has also made the first respondent to suffer for the lapses on his part. The award of the Labour Court does not warrant any interference. The writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed. It is, however, made clear that the continuity of service, granted to the first respondent, shall be restricted to the extent of working out notional increments and for the terminal benefits. There shall be no order as to costs. __________ sh 25.03.2008 ..... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1. The Presiding Officer, Labour Court-II, Hyderabad. 2. 2CCs to 2.2CD copies [1] 2004 LLR 1105