THE HOH’BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED & THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WA No.2468 OF 2005 ORDER : ( per Hon’ble Sri Justice Ghulam Mohammed ) This writ appeal is filed against the order dated 15-6-2005 passed in WP No.17300 of 1998 by the learned single Judge of this Court. The appellant herein is the workman working as Conductor in Hyderabad-II Depot, raised ID No.88 of 1994 against the order of his removal from service as Conductor. Three charges were framed against the workman and out of the three charges, the main charge is with regard to non- issuance of tickets to as many as 51 passengers who boarded the bus at stage 40, having collected the fare from them. The Labour Court having considered the matter came to the conclusion that it was quite possible that the workman-conductor could not complete the formality of issuing tickets as bulk members boarded the bus at a time and accordingly directed the Corporation to reinstate the workman into service with continuity of service, attendant benefits and 50% of the back wages. The said order was assailed by the respondents in writ petition and the learned single Judge, having regard to the fact that the workman raised the industrial dispute with a delay of six and a half years, and also that the workman failed to follow the rule of ‘issue and start’ to as many as 51 passengers who boarded the bus at ex-stage 40 and were found alighting at stage no.42, modified the order to that of reinstatement and continuity of service. Aggrieved by the same, workman filed this writ appeal. 2. Learned counsel for the workman-appellant strenuously contended that the delay in raising the industrial dispute itself is not a ground to deny the relief sought by the workman and in the circumstances explained, the workman could not issue tickets to 51 passengers who boarded the bus in a group and he was in the process of counting the persons and, therefore, the learned single Judge ought not to have interfered with the order of the Labour Court. On the other hand, learned Standing Counsel for the respondent-Corporation submitted that inasmuch as the charge of collecting fare and the workman failed to issue tickets is proved, the learned single Judge rightly denied back wages and notional increments. 3. Admittedly, three charges were framed against the workman and as regards the main charge of collecting fare and not issuing tickets is concerned it was proved. Collecting fare and not issuing tickets to the passengers that too to as many as 51 passengers is a major misconduct. The only explanation offered by the workman was that all the 51 passengers were lambadas and were in drunken state and he was not able to count them and, therefore, the bus was in movement without issue of tickets to them. But as observed by the enquiry officer, the workman ought to have detained the bus till the tickets were issued and this was not done by the workman. In these circumstances, the order of the learned single Judge of this Court modifying the order of the Labour Court does not warrants any interference. The writ appeal is meritless and the same is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. _____________________ Ghulam Mohammed, J ___________________ Sanjay Kumar, J Dated: 8-8-2011 Nrg.