THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. RAMULU W.P. No. 17662 of 2005 O R D E R: This writ petition is directed against the Award made by the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Visakhapatnam in I.D. No. 190 of 2001 dated 4.5.2004 whereunder the application filed by the petitioner under Section 2-A(2) of the I.D. Act was dismissed; in the result, petitioner was not granted any relief. It appears, petitioner joined the service of APSRTC in the year 1988 as a Driver in Salur Depot of Vizianagaram District. His services were regularized in the year 1989 and he had been working as such. While that being so, on 19.1.2000 he was on duty on the bus bearing No. AP 10Z 4577 and the Service Conductor Smt. Anuradha complained against the petitioner on 20.1.2000 stating that he misbehaved with her while she was conducting the bus on that day. Thus, petitioner was kept under suspension on 22.1.2000. Though the petitioner submitted explanation on 14.2.2000, the same was not accepted and a detailed enquiry was ordered. The Enquiry Officer submitted report on 16.6.2000 holding the petitioner guilty of the charges. Petitioner submitted his explanation and the disciplinary authority, after going through the entire material available on record, removed the petitioner from service. Aggrieved thereby, petitioner raised Industrial Dispute under Section 2-A(2) of the I.D. Act in I.D. No. 190 of 2001 before the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Visakhapatnam. The Labour Court, after detailed consideration of the entire material available on record, dismissed the I.D. holding that the charges are very grave in nature and the petitioner does not deserve any lenience to be shown and the respondent-management has not committed any error in removing him from the service of the Corporation. Hence, this writ petition. The charges leveled against the petitioner are as follows: “1. For having misbehaved with the service conductor Smt. V. Anuradha, E.458731 at 21.45 hrs by stopping the service vehicle in between Gannapadu and Rajayyapeta in a secluded place on 19.1.2000 while she was alone in the bus by uttering the above said words as mentioned in the statement of allegation by using vulgar language to fulfill sexual desire, while you were performing the duty on the vehicle No.AP 10Z 4577 on route Salur – Terlam – Rajam which constitutes misconduct vide clause No.(xxxii) of Reg.28 of APSRTC Employees (Conduct) Regulations, 1963. 2. For having stopped the vehicle bearing No. AP10Z 4970 intentionally and with bad motive in between Gagannapadu and Rajayyapeta in a secluded place at 21.45 hrs, while the vehicle in its last trip from Rajam to Bobbili (v) Terlam on 19.1.2000, that too when there were no passengers in the bus at that time, misbehaved with the co-service employee i.e. lady conductor duly uttering the above said words as mentioned in the statement of allegation, which constitutes misconduct under Reg.28(xxxii) of APSRTC Employees (Conduct) Reg., 1963. 3. For having made to frighten the lady conductor of the service by expressing your sexual desire en route of the service in between Gagannapadu and Rajayyapeta by stopping the bus at that secluded place at 21.45 hrs., and also made her to alight from the bus at Rejeru with fear complex and allowed the bus to reach Bobbili bus station without service conductor from Rejeru to Bobbili. After reaching the lady conductor to Bobbili in Srikakulam depot bus and from Bobbili also with the same fear the said lady conductor continued the service with co-employee’s assistance of Salur depot i.e. Sri B.D. Rao, E.472063, driver from Bobbili to Salur so as to protect her which constitutes misconduct vide clause No.(xxxii) of Reg.28 of APSRTC Employees’ (Conduct) Reg., 1963”. The Labour Court, after detailed consideration of the matter, held as under: “The misconduct alleged against the petitioner is proved. The petitioner did not cross-examine the lady conductor who gave report against him. Being a co-employee, the petitioner instead of protecting the interests of the lady conductor, wanted her to fulfill his desires. Unable to bear the harassment, the lady conductor reported the matter to her superiors. After holding a departmental enquiry, the management after receipt of the enquiry report, removed the petitioner from service for the misconduct committed by him. if deterrent punishment is not awarded, there will be no safety for the lady workers and other employees also resort to these activities and harass the lady workers. The management acted with an iron hand and the punishment awarded by the management in the facts and circumstances of this case is justified”. As could be seen from the above, the charges against the petitioner are very grave in nature and they are proved in full. Therefore, the Labour Court has not committed any error in dismissing the application filed by the petitioner, calling for interference of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The writ petition is devoid of merit and liable to be dismissed and accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. JUSTICE C.V. RAMULU. Date: -01-02-2011. MVB.