THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. RAMULU WRIT PETITION No.5854 OF 2003 DATED: 05.02.2008 Between: G. Sreenivasulu Naidu died per LRs Kum. G. Vani and others .. Petitioners And The Industrial Tribunal-cum- Labour Court, Anantapur, rep. by its Presiding Officer and another. .. Respondents THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. RAMULU WRIT PETITION No.5854 OF 2003 ORDER: This writ petition is filed challenging the award, dated 27.12.2002, passed in I.D.No.98 of 2000, on the file of the 1st respondent- Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Anantapur. 1st petitioner (since died) is the workman. 2nd respondent is the management. It appears, the 1st petitioner was appointed as Conductor in A.P. State Road Transport Corporation (for short ‘the Corporation’) on 10.12.1976. While so, he was issued with a charge sheet, dated 21.09.1999, enumerating the following charges: “1. For having accounted the Police Warrant No.143549 dt.21.8.99 twice in way bill Nos.0735/17299078 & 0735/1729079 dt.20.8.99 and 22.8.99 simultaneously duly showing the police warrant in both way bills, which was issued by the Inspector of Police, ACB, Tirupati from Tirupati to Chittoor after completion of your duties, which constitutes misconduct under Reg.28 (xxxii) of APSRTC Employees (Conduct) Regulations, 1963. 2. For having failed to hand over the Police Warrant No.143549 dt.21.8.99 while remitting the bus cash on 21.8.99 to the cash receiving ADC on 21.8.99 though accounted the warrant in way bill No.0735/17299078, dt.20.8.99, and misusing reissuing the same on 22.8.99, which constitutes misconduct under Reg.28 (xxxii) of APSRTC Employees (Conduct) Regulations, 1963. 3. For having shown and accounted the ticket Nos. issued at different places i.e. 20 denomination bearing ticket No.348/914194 at stage No.16 i.e. at Tirumala and Rs.2/- denomination ticket bearing No.313/843589 at stage No.15 i.e. at Tirupati instead of Tirupati indicating that no Police Constable was traveled on 22.8.99 and indulging in reissue of warrant which was once accounted on 21.8.99 which constitutes misconduct under Reg.28 (xxxii) of APSRTC Employees (Conduct) Regulations, 1963.” After the explanation of the 1st petitioner was called for and after a detailed enquiry was conducted into the charges leveled against him, the disciplinary authority passed an order on 04.01.2000, removing him from service. Aggrieved by the same, he filed a claim petition, in I.D.No.98 of 2000, under Section 2-A (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short ‘the Act’), before the 1st respondent – Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Anantapur. The Labour Court, after detailed consideration of the matter, held that the domestic enquiry conducted by the management was not vitiated, that the charges are proved, and that no lesser punishment than that of removal from service could be imposed under Section 11-A of the I.D. Act. Accordingly, the impugned award was passed dismissing the claim petition filed by the 1st petitioner. Hence, this writ petition. Learned counsel for the petitioners strenuously contended that the Labour Court failed to take note of the fact that the 1st petitioner had put in more than twenty three years of unblemished service, and failed to exercise the powers vested in it under Section 11-A of the I.D. Act. The Labour Court also failed to see that the punishment of removal from service is shockingly disproportionate to that of the misconduct alleged and that, at least, reinstatement of the 1st petitioner with continuity of service ought to have been ordered. Learned counsel for the respondent-management supported the award passed by the Labour Court. He stated that charges proved are very grave in nature and the Labour Court has rightly held that the misconduct proved is very serious and the workman does not deserve any sympathy. No grounds are made out calling for interference of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India; thus, the writ petition is devoid of merits and is liable to be dismissed. I have given my earnest consideration to the respective submissions made by the learned counsel on either side and perused the impugned award and other material made available on record. Admittedly, the domestic enquiry was found to be valid and the Labour Court, on elaborate consideration of the entire evidence, also concurred with the findings of the disciplinary authority and held that the charges leveled against the 1st petitioner are proved and are grave in nature. It was also held that it was not a fit case where lesser punishment than that of removal from service could be imposed under Section 11-A of the I.D. Act. I am of the opinion that the Labour Court ought to have taken into consideration the long service rendered by the 1st petitioner and ought to have exercised its powers by invoking Section 11-A of the I.D. Act and could have reduced the punishment of removal from service, which is shockingly disproportionate to that of the misconduct proved. In the facts and circumstances of the case and in view of more than 23 years of long service rendered by the 1st petitioner, I am of the opinion that punishment of compulsory retirement would be in proportion to the misconduct alleged to have been committed by him. Thus, the impugned award is liable to be modified. For the above reasons, the award, dated 27.12.2002, passed in I.D.No.98 of 2000, on the file of the 1st respondent- Industrial Tribunal- cum-Labour Court, Anantapur, is modified as under: “In the result, the punishment of removal from service imposed on the petitioner is reduced to that of compulsory retirement from service. The petitioner should be treated as compulsorily retired from service with effect from 04.01.2000, the date of order removing him from service.” Since the 1st petitioner- workman died and his legal representatives were brought on record, the 2nd respondent- management shall consider payment of retirement benefits accrued to the account of the 1st petitioner - workman, on his compulsory retirement, to the petitioners 2 to 4, as per law, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The writ petition is, accordingly, disposed of. No order as to costs. _________________ JUSTICE C.V. RAMULU 5th February, 2008. IBL