IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE THIRTEENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU WRIT PETITION NO : 10140 of 2000 Between: The Depot Manager, A.P.S.R.T.C. Jangaon Depot. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 T. Livingstone, E.100395 Ex.Conductor R/o. P.Surender Kumar, Advocate, Padmakshi colony, Hanamkonda. 2 The Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court,. Warangal. .....RESPONDENT(S) Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to to issue Writ of certiorari and quash the Award passed by the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Warangal in Award I.D.No. 225/95 dt 22.12.99 as illegal, irregualr and without jurisdiction and pass such other order or orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. Counsel for the Petitioner:SMT.P.RAJANI REDDY Counsel for the Respondent : GP FOR LABOUR The Court made the following : ORAL ORDER: This writ petition is filed challenging the Award made in I.D.No.225 of 1995 dated 22.12.1999 on the file of the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Warangal, whereunder petitioner management was directed to reinstate the petitioner into service with continuity of service and 50% of backwages. Further, petitioner management was directed to impose punishment of stoppage of three increments with cumulative effect and the period of suspension shall not be counted for any purpose, such as monetary etc., except for continuity of service. Petitioner is management and first respondent is workman. It appears, first respondent while conducting the Bus on 5.11.1991 on the route Jangoan-Machupadhah, a check was exercised at Stage No.4 by the checking officials and found certain cash and ticket irregularities. On the basis of report of the checking officials, a charge sheet was issued to the respondent-workman enumerating the following charges: 1. For having failed to observe the rule of issue and start. 2. For having failed to issue tickets to 23 passengers who have boarded the bus at Quilasapur and found alighting at Raghunathapalli ex-stages 5 to 4, even after collection of requisite fare of Rs.1.50 ps. at their boarding place itself. 3. For having failed to close the tray numbers in the S.R. against stage No.4. 4. For having refused to receive and acknowledge the charge memo bearing No.0206825 dated 5.11.1991, produced by the TTIs at the spot of the check. 5. For having failed to attest the passenger’s statement produced by the TTIs at the point of check. 6. For having instigated the passengers (Ticketless) not pay the EFT amount at the time of check, which resulted the ticketless passengers alighted from the bus without paying EFT amount. After conducting a detailed enquiry into the matter, disciplinary authority passed order of removal from service on 2.6.1992. Aggrieved thereby, respondent-workman raised a dispute under Section 2-A(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 before the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Warangal. It was his case that the charges levelled against him were all foisted and the enquiry was not properly conducted and assuming that there is some misconduct on his part, punishment of removal from service is shockingly disproportionate to that of the misconduct alleged. Management filed a detailed counter denying the allegations made by the workman. The Labour Court, on the basis of material placed before it, came to the conclusion that the enquiry conducted by the management was just and proper and held charges Nos.1 to 3 as proved and charge Nos.4 to 6 as not proved and while exercising powers under Section 11-A of the I.D. Act, the Labour Court found that removal from service is disproportionate to that of the misconduct alleged against the workman, and directed for reinstatement with 50% of the backwages. Aggrieved by the same, the present writ petition is filed. The learned counsel for petitioner-Management Smt.P.Rajani Reddy strenuously contended that the Labour Court having held charges 1 to 3 as proved, ought not to have granted any relief, since the second charge is grave in nature. The workman, having collected money from 23 passengers at the boarding point itself, failed to issue tickets. Thus, he deserves no sympathy and the award passed by the Labour Court granting reinstatement with continuity of service and 50% backwages is liable to be set aside. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for respondent- workman Smt.S.A.V.Ratnam contended that in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Labour Court while exercising its power under Section 11-A of the I.D. Act passed the award and no interference can be called for into such an award, particularly when 50% of backwages were denied and the workman was imposed with stoppage of three increments with cumulative effect. The writ petition is devoid of merits and liable to be dismissed. 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. The charge purported to have been proved as per the findings recorded by the Labour Court is that the respondent-workman failed to issue tickets to 23 passengers who boarded the bus at Quilaspur and found alighting at Raghunathpalli, ex-stages 5 to 4 even after collecting the requisite fare amount at the boarding itself. But the statement of the Service Driver would indicate that the passengers were threatened by TTIs to give a statement that they have paid money to the Conductor at the boarding point itself, otherwise they will be taken to Police Station for taking appropriate action against them. In fact, it is also the case of respondent-workman al-through including in the spot statement that a false case has been foisted against him. Under those circumstances, in view of the evidence of Service Driver, the Labour Court has rightly came to the conclusion that the charges are foisted against the workman, but some how, also recorded that the said findings are proved, which is inconsistent. Be that as it may, the passengers were said to have been boarded in between ex-stages 4 and 5 and found alighting at Raghunathpalli, ex-stage No.4, that itself indicate that there was no much distance between their boarding and alighting points. May be, there was some mistake on the part of Conductor in not collecting fare immediately and issuing tickets, but the version of TTIs that against 23 individual passengers, workman having collected money, did not issue tickets seems to be unreasonable. Be that as it may, while exercising powers under Section 11-A of the I.D. Act, the Labour Court, in the facts and circumstances of the case, came to conclusion that the punishment of removal from service is disproportionate to that of the misconduct, and directed reinstatement of workman with continuity of service and 50% of backwages and further directed the management to impose stoppage of three increments with cumulative effect. In the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the opinion that the award passed by the Labour Court does not suffer from any legal infirmities calling interference of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The writ petition is devoid of merits and liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. _____________ C.V.RAMULU, J Date: 13.2.2008 DA THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU WRIT PETITION NO : 10140 of 2000 13.2.2008