THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU WRIT PETITION No :1835 of 2006 DATED:15-02-2011 Between: T.V.Vinay Kumar. … PETITIONER And The Labour Court-III, Rep.by its Presiding Officer, Hyderabad & another. ... RESPONDENTS ORDER: This Writ Petition is directed against the award, dated 31-03-2001, made in I.D.No.136 of 1998 on the file of the learned Judge, Labour Court-III, Hyderabad, wherein the application filed by the petitioner under Section 2-A(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act ( for brevity, ‘the Act’) to set aside the removal order passed by the respondent management and for grant of other reliefs, was allowed partly by granting the relief of reinstatement with continuity of service, but without back wages. 2. Petitioner is the workman. 2nd respondent is the management. It appears, petitioner was appointed as a conductor in the respondent corporation with effect from 01-05-1989. Further, his services were also regularized in the said cadre with effect from 01-08-2009. As the things stood thus, while conducting bus No.AP9Z 3757 on the route Miryalguda to Madugulapally, a check was exercised at stage No.13 at about 09.00 hours and certain cash and ticket irregularities were noticed to have been committed by the petitioner. Therefore, a charge sheet, dated 15-07-1997, was issued to the petitioner with the following charges: Charge No.1: “For having collected the requisite fare from two passengers found travelling from Molkapatnam to Settipalem ex-stages 12-13/14 and reissued one ticket bearing No.156/158158 of Rs.3.50 ps. Deno.E.1 ( through the fare is Rs.2.50 ps) which was sold and accounted at stage No.9 in the stage 8 and issued another ticket No.338/180713 of Rs.2.50 ps. Den.which was not punched appropriate stages which constitutes misconduct under Reg.28 (xxiii) of A.P.S.R.T.C. Employees (Conduct) Regulations”. Charge No.2 : “for having collected Rs.2.50 ps each from 3 passengers and issued ticket No.338/018715 to 717 of Rs.2.50 ps Den.E3 who boarded the bus at Ravulapenta and found alighting at Ravourigudem, ex-stages 11 to 13, but these tickets were not punched against the stages which constitutes misconduct under Reg.28 (xxxii) of A.P.S.R.T.C.Employees (Conduct) Regulations, 1963”. 3. Petitioner submitted a detailed explanation for the same. Having not satisfied with the explanation submitted by the petitioner, respondent management appointed an enquiry officer, and the enquiry officer submitted a report holding the petitioner guilty of the charges. The disciplinary authority, however, passed an order of removal from service. The appeal and revision filed by the petitioner were also dismissed and having no other option, petitioner raised a dispute under Section 2-A (2) of the Act before the Labour Court-III, Hyderabad in I.D.No.136 of 1998. 4. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner before the Labour Court is that the enquiry was not properly conducted and absolutely there was no evidence to prove the charges levelled against the petitioner and that the past record of the petitioner was not taken into consideration. 5. Respondent filed a detailed counter denying the allegations made by the petitioner before the Labour Court. None was examined on behalf of the petitioner or the respondent management. However, on behalf of the respondent management, Exs.M1 to M21 were marked. After detailed consideration of the entire material placed before it, the Labour Court came to the conclusion that a perusal of Ex.M1 clearly reveals that the petitioner closed Rs.2.50 ps denominating as 713 at stage No.13, i.e. Revurigudem and altered the same figure as 721, which is a deliberate and wilful misconduct proved against the petitioner. However, while exercising the powers under Section 11-A of the Act, the Labour Court opined that the order of removal is shockingly disproportionate and the same do not commensurate with the gravity of the charges proved against the petitioner, and thus directed reinstatement of the petitioner with continuity of service but without any back wages. Aggrieved by the same, the present Writ Petition is filed by the workman seeking further relief of attendant benefits and back wages. 6. I am of the opinion that the Labour Court gave a categorical finding that the charge levelled against the petitioner was proved in full, however, while exercising its powers under Section 11-A of the Act, passed an order of reinstatement with continuity of service, however without back wages. Such a discretionary order passed by the Labour Court in spite of recording a finding that the charges are proved, cannot be interfered for the purpose of granting further relief to the petitioner. Writ Petition is devoid of merits and is liable to be dismissed. 7. Accordingly, Writ Petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. ________________ C.V.RAMULU,J 15th February, 2011. Tsy