THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT PETITION No.7117 of 2008 ORDER: The Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation (A.P.S.R.T.C) challenges the Award dated 20.3.2007 passed by the Additional Industrial Tribunal-cum-Additional Labour Court at Hyderabad in I.D.No.15 of 2005. By the said Award, the Labour Court set aside the order dated 17.5.2004 removing the first respondent- driver from service and directed the A.P.S.R.T.C to re-instate him with continuity of service and with all consequential benefits, but without back wages. The first respondent-driver entered the service of the A.P.S.R.T.C in the year 1985. While he was plying the bus service between Hyderabad (K.P.H.B) and Vijayawada on 31.12.2003, a check was made at Suryapet and certain cash and ticket irregularities were detected. This service was a Ticket Issue Machine (TIM) service, wherein the driver himself is expected to issue the tickets to the passengers. Under charge sheet dated 31.12.2003, the first respondent-driver was charged with the misconduct of failure to issue a ticket to a passenger in spite of collecting the ticket fare amount of Rs.124/-. After conducting an enquiry into the matter, the A.P.S.R.T.C removed the first respondent-driver from service under order dated 17.5.2004. His appeal and thereafter, his revision, having been met with failure, the first respondent-driver approached the Labour Court by way of the subject I.D under Section 2-A(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. By the impugned Award dated 20.3.2007, the Labour Court set aside the removal from service visited upon the first respondent- driver and directed his re-instatement with continuity of service along with all consequential benefits, but denied him back wages on the principle of no work no pay. Hence, this Writ Petition. The version put forth by the first respondent-driver was that the Ticket Issue Machine was not working and therefore, he tried to secure a ticket for the passenger in question at Hayathnagar and Narketpally Depots, but the ticket counters there were found closed. As it was the middle of the night, the passenger refused to get off the bus. The Labour Court found that this version put forth by the first respondent-driver was supported by the evidence of the T.T.I, who confirmed during the Domestic Enquiry that the Ticket Issue Machine was not working. The Labour Court also found support for the driver’s claim that the ticket counters at Hayathnagar and Narketpally Depots were closed. As the first respondent-driver was not afforded the alternative mechanism of issuing ticket fare receipts in the event of failure of the Ticket Issue Machine, the Labour Court was of the opinion that this serious charge leveled and held proved against the first respondent-driver could not be sustained. It accordingly set aside the A.P.S.R.T.C’s order dated 17.5.2004 removing the first respondent- driver from service and granted relief as aforestated. In the light of the cogent reasons recorded by the Labour Court while undertaking the above exercise, this Court does not find any cause to interfere with the award under challenge. As the T.T.I himself confirmed the driver’s version that the Ticket Issue Machine was not functioning, he cannot be found fault with for having failed to issue a ticket to a passenger who boarded the bus midway at Kothapet. The punishment imposed upon the first respondent-driver, on the basis of this charge, cannot therefore be sustained. No error is manifest from the award under challenge warranting interference by this Court. The Writ Petition is devoid of merit and is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. SANJAY KUMAR, J Date: 21.01.2011 va/kvs