THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU WRIT PETITION No.18063 of 2007 Dated: 09.04.2010 Between: The Depot Manager, A.P.S.R.T.C., Uravakonda Depot, Uravakonda, Ananthapur District. .. Petitioner. And A.Nagaiah and another. .. Respondents. ORDER: This writ petition is filed challenging the award, dated 15.12.2006, passed in I.D.No.254 of 2003 on the file of the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Anantapur. Petitioner is the management and 1st respondent is the workman. It appears, while the workman, who was appointed as Conductor in the A.P. State Road Transport Corporation (for short ‘the Corporation’) in the year 1981, was conducting a bus bearing No.AP 9 Z 5503 on 20.01.2002, on the route Putaparthi – Ueravakonda, a check was exercised by the checking officials at stages 10/9 at about 8.15 p.m. and detected certain cash and ticket irregularities alleged to have been committed by the workman. Basing on the material available on record, the workman was suspended from service on 31.01.2002 and issued with a charge sheet enumerating the following charges: 1) For having failed to collect the fare and issue ticket to a passenger who boarded the bus at Kothacheruvu and found traveling to Dharmavaram Ex-Stages 10 to 9 which constitutes misconduct under Reg. 28(vi) (a) of APSRTC Employees (Conduct) Reg., 1963. 2) For having already closed the tray numbers of all denominations in the SR upto stage No.9 even without completing the above ticket issues, which constitutes misconduct under Reg. 28(xxxii) of APSRTC Employees (Conduct) Reg., 1963. 3) For having violated the rule “Issue & Start” which constitutes misconduct under Reg. 28 (xxxii) of APSRTC Employees (Conduct) Reg., 1963.” The workman submitted his explanation to the charges leveled against him, but having not satisfied with the same, a detailed enquiry was ordered and, after completion of the enquiry, the workman was removed from service vide orders dated 13.05.2002. Both the appeal and the review petition filed by the workman, aggrieved by the said punishment imposed by the disciplinary authority, were dismissed by the appellate as well as the reviewing authorities vide proceedings dated 17.07.2002 and 31.07.2002 respectively. Thereafter, the workman raised a dispute in I.D.No. 254 of 2003, under Section 2-A (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short ‘the I.D. Act’), before the 2nd respondent-Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Anantapur. Before the Labour Court, no oral evidence was adduced on either side. However, on behalf of the management, documents Exs.M1 to M15 were marked. After detailed consideration of the entire material placed before it, the Labour Court was of the opinion that in view of the alleged misconduct, which is trivial in nature, the management ought to have given warning or imposed a minor penalty on the workman. Having found no fair play at the time of conducting domestic enquiry, the Labour Court ultimately came to the conclusion that the order of removal from service is shockingly disproportionate to that of the misconduct alleged, besides illegal, and, accordingly, passed the impugned award, setting aside the order of removal from service and ordering reinstatement of the workman with continuity of service, attendant benefits and 50% of backwages. Aggrieved thereby, the management preferred this writ petition. Heard the submissions made by the learned counsel on either side and perused the impugned award and other material made available on record. There is no necessity of going into all the details. It is suffice to notice that the 1st respondent, on attaining the age of superannuation, retired from service in the year 2007 itself. The past conduct of the 1st respondent is very bad. He was removed from service on two occasions and later reinstated into service as per the awards of the Industrial Tribunal passed in I.D.Nos.128 of 1989 and 163 of 1996. Further, he was suspended from service on four occasions. All the said punishments imposed on the 1st respondent were for his involvement in certain cash and tickets irregularities, like the one on hand. Thus, I am of the opinion that may be in view of the nature of the charges proved against the 1st respondent, the Labour Court was right in ordering reinstatement of the 1st respondent into service with continuity of service and attendant benefits. But, taking into consideration of the previous conduct of the 1st respondent which is bad, the Labour Court ought not to have awarded 50% of backwages. Therefore, it would be just and proper to modify the impugned award by denying 50% of backwages to the 1st respondent, which was awarded by the Labour Court. For all the above reasons, the impugned award, dated 15.12.2006, passed in I.D.No.254 of 2003, is modified as under: “The order of removal from service passed by the petitioner-management is set aside and the petitioner-management is directed to reinstate the 1st respondent-workman into service with continuity of service and attendant benefits, but without any backwages.” With the above modification, the writ petition is disposed of. No order as to costs. _____________ C.V.RAMULU,J 09.04.2010 v v