THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B. CHANDRA KUMAR Writ Petition No. 18313 of 2001 Order: This writ petition is directed against the award dated 26.04.2001 passed in I.D. No. 102 of 1999 by the Chairman-cum-Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Godavarikhani. The brief facts of the case are as follows. The petitioner herein was working as Conductor in the respondent-APSRTC. On 12.01.1997, while the petitioner was conducting the bus bearing No. AP 9Z 875 on route Kunaram to Peddapalli, the bus was checked by the TTI officials and the following issues were framed against him. “1. For having failed to issue tickets to 12 (twelve) individual passengers having boarded the bus at Hanumanthunipet and found alighting at Solvent Oil Mill (Peddapalli village) Ex. Stages 9 to 9/8 from whom you have already collected the requisite fare of Rs.2/- each at their boarding point itself, which constitutes misconduct in terms of Reg.28 (vi) (a)(x) of APSRTC Employees (Conduct) Reg.1963. 2. For having violated the Rule issue and start which constitutes misconduct in terms of Reg.28(vi)(a) of APSRTC Employees (Conduct) Reg. 1963.” The petitioner submitted his explanation. The first respondent, having not satisfied with the explanation submitted by the petitioner, passed orders on 20.05.1997 removing the petitioner from service. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner raised industrial dispute in I.D. No.102 of 1999. The Labour Court, by reason of the impugned orders dated 26.04.2001, dismissed the said I.D. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner filed the present writ petition. The main contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that 12 passengers boarded the bus at railway gate in between stage No.9 and stage No.9/8 and that check took place at Solvent Oil Mill and the distance between place of boarding of these 12 passengers and check is less than 100 meters and that some passengers were in hurry to catch a train and in the above circumstances, the petitioner allowed the bus to move and while he was in the process of collecting the fare from the passengers check took place. Learned Standing Counsel for the respondent-Corporation vehemently contended that when the charges against the petitioner are proved in the departmental enquiry and same are confirmed by the Labour Court, no interference by this Court is required. It is also her submission that even on admitted facts the second charge is proved. The first respondent-Depot Manager, in the removal order, stated that since the distance from the Railway gate to Solvent Oil Mill is only 20 metres there was no difficulty for the Conductor to stop the bus and complete the issuing of tickets in a less load of 16 + 12 = 28 passengers in the bus and in spite of knowing that it was short distance the Conductor deliberately moved the bus to Solvent Oil Mill where the passengers were alighting from the bus. He had also observed that had the TTIs not checked the bus the passengers would have alighted from the bus without tickets and the conductor would have pocketed the total ticket amount of Rs.24/- of 12 passengers, thereby loss of revenue to the Corporation to this extent. During the enquiry on behalf of the management, the TTI, who conducted the check was examined as management witness and relevant documents were marked. No doubt, it is clear that when the check was conducted at the stage 9/8 at 6.00 AM all the 12 passengers were found without tickets. It is also a fact that the petitioner did not close ticket tray numbers pertaining to Rs.2/- to Rs.2-50 ps., denominations and closed all the remaining denominations. Admittedly, the petitioner did not issue tickets to 12 passengers. Of course, at the time of check as per the statement of the management witness all these passengers had informed him that they paid Rs.2/- each to the petitioner and that he failed to issue tickets to them. However, the stand of the petitioner is that the TTIs who checked the bus threatened the passengers and obtained such statement from the passengers. Admittedly, none of the passengers were examined during the departmental enquiry and also before the Labour Court. May be the version of the management is true or the version of the workman, but however, as seen from the recitals of the removal order of the Depot Manager it is clear that the distance between the place of boarding of these twelve passengers and the place of check is very short i.e., less than 100 metres. The petitioner ought to have stopped the bus and ought to have not allowed the bus to move till he completes the issue of tickets and he ought to have followed the rule of issue and start. Of course, the case of the petitioner is that some of the passengers were hurried to catch a train and therefore they requested the bus to move. Whatever it may be, in view of the short distance of 100 metres between two places, the truth or otherwise of the allegations or the explanation of the Conductor cannot be decided in one way or other. Both versions are possible and when both versions are possible, the settled legal position is that a version in favour of the workman has to be adopted and such is the case, basing on the admitted facts it is clear that the petitioner has violated the rule of issue and start which constitute a misconduct under Reg.28(vi)(a) of the APSRTC Employees (Conduct) Reg.1963. Therefore, it is clear that charge No.2 is proved. However, the petitioner appears to be entitled to the benefit of doubt with regard to charge No.1 in view of short distance of 100 metres between two places and in view of that passing of removal order by the first respondent or confirming the same by the Labour Court appears to be not justified in the facts and circumstances of the case. However since Charge No.2 is proved denial of entire backwages appear to be justified. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed and the impugned award of the Labour Court is set aside. The respondent-Corporation is directed to reinstate the petitioner into service with continuity of service with all other benefits except back wages. However, in the circumstances, no costs. ___________________ B. CHANDRA KUMAR, J. Date: 26.11.2010 Nsr