HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION No. 6931 of 2001 ORDER: The petitioner-workman, a Conductor with the Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation (APSRTC), has filed the present Writ Petition against the award of the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Warangal, in I.D.No.194 of 1994 dated 28.11.1997, whereby his claim was disallowed. Pursuant to a dispute raised, the Government issued G.O.Rt.No.674, dated 29.11.1994, under Section 10(1)(c) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short ‘the Act’), referring the following dispute for adjudication: “Whether the Depot Manager, APSRTC, Warangal-I Depot is justified in imposing the punishment of deferment of annual increment of Sri G.Ravi Reddy, E.302184, Conductor, for a period of two years with cumulative effect besides treating the period of suspension as not on duty.” While the petitioner was conducting bus No.2916 on 13.01.1999 in connection with “Kothakonda Jatra”, a check was exercised by the checking officials at Mulkanoor stage and found eight ticketless passengers, who were imposed the penalty of Rs.100/- in addition to the requisite fare. In his spot explanation, the petitioner stated that the bus was overloaded; he had been performing his duties continuously for the last two days and was tired; he had shouted in the bus requesting all the passengers to obtain tickets; eight passengers had cheated him and had failed to obtain tickets; and, therefore, there was no mala fide intention on his part. Pursuant thereto, a charge sheet was issued on 02.03.1989 with the following charges: 1. For having violated the rule of issue and start, which amounts to misconduct in terms of Regulation No. 28(xxxii) of APSRTC Employees (Conduct) Reg. 1963. 2. For having failed to collect fare and issue tickets to a batch of five (5) passengers, found alighting without tickets at Mulkanoor stage No.5 having boarded the bus at Kothakonda stage No.6, which amounts to misconduct in terms of Regulation No.28(iv) (a) of APSRTC Employees (Conduct) Reg. 1963. 3. For having failed to collect fare and issue tickets to a batch of three (3) passengers, found alighting without tickets at Mulkanoor stage No.5 having boarded the bus at Kothakonda stage No.6 which amounts to misconduct in terms of Regulation No.28(iv) (a) of APSRTC Employees (Conduct) Reg. 1963. 4. For having closed the tray numbers of all denominations upto stage No.5 without completing the above ticket issues, which amounts misconduct in terms of Regulation No.28(xxv) of APSRTC Employees (Conduct) Reg. 1963. Thereafter, an enquiry was held, and the enquiry officer held the charges levelled against the petitioner as having been proved. The disciplinary authority concurred with the findings of the enquiry officer and imposed on him the punishment of stoppage of two annual increments with cumulative effect besides treating his suspension period as “not on duty”. Aggrieved thereby, the aforesaid dispute was raised resulting in an award being passed by the Labour Court. In the impugned award, the Labour Court notes that the vehicle was overloaded; there were 92 passengers in the bus; the petitioner had continuously worked for two days in “Kothakonda Jatara”; a duty was cast upon the passengers also to tender fare to the conductor; this did not, however, absolve him from discharging his responsibility by simply shouting at the passengers asking them to purchase the tickets; he had to verify whether the total number of passengers in the bus tallied with the S.R; he had not taken this precaution; he was negligent in not counting the number of persons in the bus so as to tally with his S.R. which amounted to misconduct; and, therefore, the enquiry officer had not committed any error in coming to the conclusion that the charges levelled against the petitioner were established. Sri B.Sudhakhar Reddy, Learned Counsel for the petitioner, would vehemently contend that having accepted the petitioner’s contention that the bus was overloaded with 92 passengers in connection with “Kothakonda Jatra”, except for eight all the other passengers in the bus had been issued tickets, and as the petitioner had continuously worked for the past two days resulting in extreme fatigue, the Labour Court had erred in holding him guilty of the charges. Learned Counsel would submit that imposition of punishment of stoppage of two increments with cumulative effect is a major penalty which results in loss of increments over the entire period of service of the employee, in addition to the fact that the petitioner was merely paid subsistence allowance for the period of his suspension, even though the circumstances would justify a more lenient view being taken by the authorities, both with regards the charges levelled against the petitioner and the punishment imposed on him. While the submission of Sri B.Sudhakhar Reddy, Learned Counsel for the petitioner, cannot be said to be without merit and may well have justified the Labour Court taking a more sympathetic view in exercise of its jurisdiction under Section 11- A of the Act, it must be borne in mind that the jurisdiction which this Court exercises in certiorari proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is not appellate. Neither would this Court sit in judgment nor would it reappreciate the findings recorded by the Labour Court. It would also not substitute its conclusions for that of the Labour Court/Industrial Tribunal. Even if the conclusion of the Labour Court does not appeal to this Court, as long as such a conclusion is based on the material on record, no interference would be called far. The fact that the petitioner had failed to count the number of passengers in the bus, and had not tallied the number of tickets with the S.R, is not in dispute. Failure on the part of the petitioner to do so has been held as amounting to negligence by the Labour Court. The conclusion of the Labour Court is based on the evidence on record, and would not justify interference in certiorari proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Even with regards the quantum of penalty, the jurisdiction which this Court exercises is limited and it is only where the punishment is one which could not have been imposed at all or is one which shocks the conscience of this Court, would interference be called for. Neither of these two eventualities arise. Viewed from any angle, the award of the Labour Court does not necessitate interference. The Writ Petition fails and is, accordingly, dismissed. However, in the circumstances, without costs. RAMESH RANGANATHAN,J Date:02.12.2010 usd