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.5934 of 2009 Between: The Depot Manager, APSRTC, Vizianagaram. ..... Petitioner AND The Regional Secretary, APSRTC National Mazdoor Union, Vizianagaram, representing I.J. Rao, E.454380, Conductor & 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.5934 of 2009 ORDER:- This writ petition is filed for a Writ of Certiorari to quash award dated 04.03.2008 in I.D.No.86 of 2005 on the file of respondent No.2. Heard Sri C. Appaiah Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioners and perused the record. Respondent No.1 is the workers union representing a conductor in the Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation. Disciplinary proceedings were initiated against the said workman. The charge was that the workman failed to collect fare and issue tickets worth Rs.3.50 ps and Rs.2/- from two lady passengers, who boarded the bus at Gudivada-Agraharam and found alighting at Govindapuram ex-stages 5/6 to 7 and closed all denominations in the SR upto stage No.7. Without conducting any domestic enquiry the petitioner imposed punishment of deferment of annual grade increment for a period of one year with cumulative effect. Respondent No.1 approached respondent No.2 under Section 2A(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short, ‘the Act’) questioning the said order. Respondent No.2, while concurring with the finding of guilt of respondent No.1, however, applied doctrine of proportionality and held that the penalty of deferment of annual grade increment for a period of one year with cumulative effect is disproportionate to the gravity of irregularity. On that reasoning the said punishment was modified into one of deferment of annual increment for a period of one year without cumulative effect. Assailing this award, the petitioner 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 respondent No.2 ought not to have interfered with the quantum of punishment imposed on respondent No.1. 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 the punishment of deferment of annual grade increment for a period of one year with cumulative effect 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 not collecting fare and issuing tickets worth Rs.3.50 ps and Rs.2/- denominations may not be of so grave as to warrant deferment of annual increment for a period of one year with cumulative effect. 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, where misappropriation is not imputed to the workman, respondent No.2 has exercised its discretion by modifying the punishment of deferment of annual grade increment for a period of one year with cumulative effect to that of deferment of annual increment for a period of one year without cumulative effect. In this view of the matter, I am not inclined to exercise the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court to entertain this writ petition. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. As a sequel to dismissal of the writ petition, WPMP.No.7749 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