IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (SPECIAL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION) THURSDAY, THE SIXTEENTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TEN HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N. RAVI SHANKAR WRIT PETITION No.26135 of 2001 16th December, 2010 BETWEEN: Gannu Srinivas … PETITIONER(S) And The Hon’ble Industrial Tribunal –cum- Labour Court, Godavarikhani, rep. by its Presiding Officer and another. … RESPONDENT(S) THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N. RAVI SHANKAR WRIT PETITION No.26135 of 2001 ORDER: The point that arises for determination in this writ petition is whether the award dated 22.02.2001 passed in I.D.No.94/1997 on the file of the Industrial Tribunal –cum- Labour Court at Godavarikhani (for short – ‘Labour Court’), refusing back wages and continuity of service while ordering reinstatement of the petitioner into service is correct or not. 2. The point arises in the following circumstances. The petitioner at the relevant time was working as a Conductor in the depot of Mancherial of Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation (APSRTC). On 17.08.1991, he was the Conductor of the bus of APSRTC plying on the route from Nizamabad to Mancherial. The concerned checking inspectors checked the said bus on that date and found that the petitioner committed some cash and ticket irregularities and accordingly he was issued a charge memo/ charge sheet dated 22.08.1991 after placing him under suspension for holding a departmental enquiry. The substance of the first charge is that the petitioner collected Rs.5/- each towards fare from two passengers who boarded the bus at Khanapur and bound for Kadam and failed to issue tickets. The substance of the second charge is that he closed all the denominations of the tickets up to stage No.19 without completing the issue of tickets. 3. The petitioner submitted his explanation and an enquiry was held and finally after following the procedure the petitioner was removed from service by the first authority by its order dated 24.02.1992. The petitioner’s appeal against that removal was rejected by the appellate authority by its order dated 27.11.1992 and his review petition was also rejected by the Regional Manager, Adilabad, by his order dated 18.09.1995. Thereafter, the petitioner moved the Labour Court questioning his removal by way of I.D.No.94/1997. After considering the matter, the Labour Court by its award dated 22.02.2001 upheld the charges but found that the punishment of removal of the petitioner from service is disproportionate to the charges/misconduct and in that view of the matter, it directed reinstatement of the petitioner but without back wages and without continuity of service. 4. The petitioner filed this writ petition questioning the award of the Labour Court insofar as that Court refused back wages and continuity of service. The APSRTC did not file any writ petition questioning the re-instatement of the petitioner into service. The main plea of the petitioner is that having ordered reinstatement, the Labour Court ought to have granted back wages and continuity of service which is the normal rule and it did not give any reasons for refusing the same and therefore this Court should now grant the said reliefs. Alternatively, the learned counsel for the petitioner pleaded that the matter should be remanded to the Labour Court to decide afresh the claim of the petitioner for grant of back wages and also continuity of service. In support of this contention, he relied upon a decision of this Court given in P.F.KHAN vs. DEPOT MANAGER, APSRTC, ANANTHAPUR[1]. 5. The Law Officer of APSRTC, Hyderabad, filed counter pleading that the Labour Court was right in refusing the two reliefs of back wages and continuity of service and there is no reason to interfere with the award. The learned counsel for the APSRTC relied upon REGIONAL MANAGER, RSRTC vs. GHANSHYAM SHARMA[2] and DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER, KSRTC vs. A.T.MANE[3] and contended that having regard to the misconduct of the petitioner which is a grave one the Tribunal was right in refusing back wages and continuity of service and its award does not call for any interference. The point is now taken up in the light of the above pleadings and contentions. 6. A perusal of the Labour Court’s award in question would show that it did discuss the evidence though not elaborately and concluded that the punishment of removal was disproportionate to the misconduct attributed to the petitioner and in that view of the matter it ordered reinstatement of the petitioner. However, so far as grant of back wages and continuity of service are concerned, it is true, it did not give any reasons for refusing the same. The learned counsel for the petitioner pointed out that in the absence of any reasons in the award for refusing the said two reliefs this Court should now grant them or remand the matter to the Labour Court for a fresh decision on the question whether the petitioner is entitled to the said reliefs also. It is difficult to accept this contention of the petitioner’s counsel. 7. It may be noted that a perusal of the award would show that the petitioner did not question the validity of the domestic enquiry and the conclusions of the Labour Court would show that it did not exonerate the petitioner from the misconduct charges brought against him but only concluded that the punishment of removal was disproportionate and in that view of the matter it ordered reinstatement. The relief of reinstatement has not been assailed by the APSRTC. Thus, that relief can be said to have become final. The decision of this Court given in P.F.KHAN case (1 supra) and relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner pertained to conversion of the punishment of removal from service into one of compulsory retirement without giving any reasons by the Labour Court and therefore this Court ordered a remand. It may be noted that in substance both the punishment of removal from service and the punishment of compulsory retirement have the same effect of termination of the employment. That is not the case here. Hence the above decision cannot advance the case of the petitioner. 8. In the present case, the Labour Court upheld the charges relating to misconduct but held that having regard to the misconduct the punishment of removal was harsher and granted the relief of reinstatement. The misconduct related to collecting fare from two passengers and not issuing tickets to them and that amounts to misappropriation. In the second and third decisions referred to supra and relied upon by the learned Standing Counsel for APSRTC, it has been held by our Hon’ble Supreme Court that where Conductors of State Transport undertakings are found to have collected fares and failed to issue tickets to passengers that amounts to serious misconduct and removal or dismissal from service would be the proper penalty. Thus, in the present case the petitioner must consider himself to be fortunate to get back his job in the award of the Labour Court. 9. It is now well settled that continuity of service and back wages are granted as a normal rule only in those cases where the termination is found to be illegal and the employee is given a clean chit but not in a case like this. The learned counsel for the petitioner could not show any circumstance as to how the petitioner can be given back wages and continuity of service in the circumstances of this case and hence the petitioner’s claim in this behalf must fail. In my opinion where the conclusion of a Tribunal or Court or an authority is found to be correct it cannot be disturbed lightly on the ground that it has not given sound reasoning or no reasoning at all. 10. Accordingly, for the aforesaid reasons, the point is decided in the negative and this writ petition is dismissed. However, having regard to the position of the petitioner who is a Conductor in the APSRTC, there shall be no order as to costs. ______________________ N. RAVI SHANKAR, J 16th December, 2010. CVRK [1] 2008-LAP-0-23 [2] (2002) 10 SCC 330 [3] (2005) 3 SCC 254