THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU WRIT PETITION No.3087 of 2005 Dated: 08.06.2010 Between: The Depot Manager, APSRTC, Mahaboobnagar District. .. Petitioner. And The Labour Court-III, Hyderabad, rep. by its Presiding Officer and another. .. Respondents. ORDER: This writ petition is directed against the award dated 17.08.2004 passed by the Labour Court-III, Hyderabad, A.P., in I.D.No.55 of 2002. Petitioner is the management. Respondent No.2 is the workman. It appears, while respondent No.2, who was appointed as Conductor in Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation (for short ‘the Corporation’) in the year 1990, was conducting a bus bearing No.601 on 28.09.2000, a check was exercised by the checking officials at stage No.5/6 i.e., Kanakapur Tanda and they found certain cash and ticket irregularities alleged to have been committed by the 2nd respondent. Thereupon, he was issued with a charge sheet enumerating the following charges: 1) For having violated the rule ‘Issue & Start’ which constitutes misconduct under Reg.28 (xxxii) of APSRTC Employees’ (Conduct) Reg., 1963. 2) For having collected the requisite fare of Rs.3/- each (Total Rs.6/-) from a batch of two passengers, at the boarding point itself and failed to issue tickets to them, found alighting without tickets at stage No.5/6 (Kanakapur Tanda), having boarded the bus at Janampet Stage No.5, which constitutes misconduct under Reg.28 (vi) & (xxxi) of APSRTC Employees’ (Conduct) Regulations, 1963. After conducting a detailed enquiry into the matter, the disciplinary authority passed an order on 30.04.2001 removing the 2nd respondent from service. Aggrieved thereby, the 2nd respondent raised a dispute being I.D.No.55 of 2002, under Section 2-A (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short ‘the I.D.Act’) before the Labour Court-III, Hyderabad, A.P. It was the case of the workman before the Labour Court that the Enquiry Officer has not considered the evidence of the passenger given during the domestic enquiry, that he has not committed any misconduct, and, therefore, the punishment of removal is shockingly disproportionate to that of the alleged misconduct. A detailed counter-affidavit has been filed by the management denying the allegations made by the workman and it was further asserted that the petitioner, having collected the fare amount of Rs.3/- each i.e., total amount of Rs.6/-, failed to issue tickets to a batch of two persons and thereby committed misconduct, for which the punishment of removal is proportionate and reasonable. Before the Labour Court, no oral evidence was adduced on either side, but documents Exs.M1 to M24 are marked on behalf of the management. After due consideration of the entire material placed before it, the Labour Court held that both the charges are not proved, that the workman was not found guilty of the charges framed against him, that no case of misappropriation was established and, therefore, the punishment of removal from service was shockingly disproportionate to that of the misconduct proved. Accordingly, an award was passed on 17.08.2004 setting aside the termination order dated 30.04.2001 and directing the management to reinstate the workman into service as a conductor with continuity of service and backwages. However, it was ordered that the workman is not entitled for attendant benefits and the period of suspension shall not be counted for any purpose. Aggrieved thereby, the management filed this writ petition. Learned counsel for the management strenuously contended that the Labour Court re-appreciated the evidence and came to erroneous conclusion that the charges are not proved, by simply believing the evidence of the passenger given during the course of domestic enquiry, wherein he stated that he paid Rs.5/- to the workman at the place of boarding and the workman has issued two tickets of Rs.3/- each, but due to fear and confusion, he gave the statement at the time of check that in spite of paying the fare by him to the workman, he and his wife were not issued tickets by the workman. Per contra, the learned counsel for the 2nd respondent-workman contended that the Labour Court, after detailed consideration of the matter, rightly held that the charges are not proved and, accordingly, passed the impugned award and the same does not call for any interference of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. I have given my earnest consideration to the respective submissions made by the learned counsel on either side and perused the impugned award and other material made available on record. Admittedly, the domestic enquiry was found to be valid, in view of the memo filed under Section 11-A of the I.D. Act by the counsel for the workman before the Labour Court. The charges are that the workman failed to follow the rule ‘issue and start’ and failed to issue tickets to a batch of two passengers, having collected money from them. The Labour Court has re-appreciated the evidence and found that at the time of checking, the passengers stated that they paid the fare to the workman at the boarding place itself, but the workman has not issued tickets to them, whereas during the course of domestic enquiry, they changed the earlier version and stated that they paid Rs.5/- to the workman and the workman gave two tickets of Rs.3/- each, but due to confusion and fear, they stated before the checking officials that though they paid fare, the workman failed to give tickets. The Labour Court, having observed that the evidence of the passenger during the course of enquiry is in support of the spot explanation of the workman that he issued two tickets of Rs.3/- each to the batch of two passengers, having collected Rs.5/- from them, and when he was demanding them to pay the balance amount of Rs.1/-, the check has taken placed. In the circumstances, the Labour Court held that there are bona fides on the part of the workman. I am of the considered opinion that the Labour Court has not properly considered the process of issuing tickets by the conductor and the check to be conducted by the TTIs. However, even if it is assumed that the charges are proved, in the facts and circumstances of the case and taking the past conduct of the workman into consideration, I am of the opinion that the punishment of removal from service is disproportionate to that of the misconduct. For the aforesaid reasons, the impugned award is modified as under: “The workman is entitled for reinstatement with continuity of service, but without any attendant benefits and backwages. The period of suspension shall be treated as continuous for all other purposes, except payment of arrears of salary”. With the above modification, the writ petition is disposed of. No order as to costs. _____________ C.V.RAMULU,J 08.06.2010 v v