THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU WRIT PETITION No.2570 of 2005 Dated: 04.06.2010 Between: K.V. Swamy .. Petitioner. And The Presiding Officer, Labour Court-III, Chandravihar Building, Hyderabad, and another. .. Respondents ORDER: This writ petition is filed challenging the award, dated 23.08.2004, passed in I.D.No.51 of 2002 on the file of the Labour Court-III, Hyderabad. Petitioner is the workman. Respondent No.2 is the management. It appears, while the petitioner, who was appointed as casual Conductor on 06.05.2000 at Gadwal Depot of A.P. State Road Transport Corporation (for short ‘the Corporation’), was performing special duty on Route Kurumurthy Jathra to Kollapur for three days i.e., from 21.11.2001 to 23.11.2001, a check was exercised on 23.11.2001 by the checking officials at Stage No.19/17 and certain cash and tickets irregularities alleged to have been committed by the petitioner were found. Thereupon, he was issued with a charge memo. Basing on the charge memo, a charge sheet was issued enumerating the following charges:- “1. You have violated the rule issue & start. 2. You have collected Rs.34/- each total Rs.136/- from a batch of 4 passengers who boarded the bus at Kurumurthy Jathra and bound for Govandhanagiri ex- stages 29 to 11 and issued tickets bearing No.458/503936, 963, 964, 972 of Rs.20/- each denomination and 056/123671, 672, 673, 782 of Rs.10/- denomination and 560/7382, 14215, 216, 217 of Rs.4/- E (4), the above Rs.20/- dens., tickets already accepted at stage No.29 at Jathra. In 3rd trip in the S.R. bearing No.A7/1078412 dt. 21.11.2001 and same tickets are re- issued to the above passengers hence confiscated them bearing No.458/503936, 963, 964, 972 of Rs.20/- (D) E (4) and disallowed and taken TPTNo.458/504126 to 129 of Rs.20/-. 3. You have collected Rs.27/- each total Rs.54/- from 2 passengers who boarded the bus at Kurumurthy Jathra and bound for Pebbeir ex-stage No.29 to 17 and issued tickets bearing No.458/503934 and 935 of Rs.20/- E (2) and 287/02913 and 132 of Rs.7/- E (2). The tickets bearing No.458/5-3934 and 935 of Rs.20/- were already issued and accounted in the S.R. against stage No.29 in third trip dt.21.11.2001 in the S.R.No.A7/1078412 dt.21.11.2001 you have reissued Rs.20/- dens., tickets to the above passengers. Hence confiscated the above tickets and taken TPT No.458/504130 and 131 of Rs.20/- . 4. You have collected Rs.43/- each total Rs.258/- from a batch of 6 passengers who boarded the bus at Kurumurthy Jathra and bound for Panthavally ex-stages 29 to 3 and issued tickets bearing No.458/503951, 960, 965, 967, 968, 969, 970, 973, 995, 996 of Rs.20/- E (10) and 458/504012 and 013 of Rs.20/- E (2) and 353/285167 to 172 of Rs.3/- E (6). The tickets bearing No.458/503951, 960, 965, 967, 968, 969, 970, 973, 995, 996, 012, 013 of Rs.20/- were already mentioned in the S.R. against stages 29 in third trip on 21.11.2001 the S.R. No.A7/1078142 dt.21.11.2001 and you have re-issued the above Rs.20/- denomination tickets.” After receiving the spot explanation submitted by the workman, the management issued show cause notice to the workman calling for his explanation as to why his name should not be deleted from the approved list or selected list, and the workman submitted his explanation thereof. Thereafter, on the basis of the records and the irregularities said to have been committed by the workman, by orders dated 29.01.2002 the petitioner was removed from service by deleting his name from the approved list or selected list. Aggrieved thereby, the workman raised a dispute in I.D.No.51 of 2002 under Section 2-A (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short ‘the Act’) before the Labour Court-III, Hyderabad. It was the case of the workman that he has not committed any irregularity or misconduct as alleged against him, that the management passed orders dated 29.01.2002 without following the procedure according to law. The management filed a detailed counter affidavit before the Labour Court denying the allegations made by the workman and it was asserted that the workman violated the rule “issue and start”, that he misappropriated the amount by re-issuing the tickets that were already accounted for, that as per the report of the Traffic Supervisor, the workman was unauthorisedly absent to duties from 25.11.2001 to 17.01.2002, thereby causing inconvenience and loss of revenues to the Corporation, that as the petitioner was appointed on daily wages as per circular instructions in Circular No.PD-22/99, dated 05.03.1999, a show cause notice was issued to him and after perusing the records and irregularities committed by him, by orders dated 29.01.2002 the petitioner was removed from service, and therefore, the claim petition filed by the workman was liable to be dismissed. Before the Labour Court, on behalf of the workman, WW.1 was examined, but no documents were marked on his behalf. On behalf of the management, no oral evidence was adduced, but Exs.M1 to M12 documents were marked. After detailed consideration of the entire material placed before it, the Labour Court held that the alleged misconduct and misappropriation are duly established and that, since the workman was not an employee as defined in service regulations, the orders dated 29.01.2002 passed by the management is valid according to law, and, accordingly, dismissed the I.D. by the impugned award dated 23.08.2004. Aggrieved thereby, the workman filed this writ petition. I have heard the learned counsel on either side and perused the impugned award and other material made available on record. Though the workman alleged that he was removed from service by the management without giving him an opportunity of hearing and without following the procedure as per law, he was given an opportunity of being heard before the Labour Court to disprove the allegations leveled against him. Thus, this aspect does not arise for consideration at this stage. The Labour Court found that the misconduct and misappropriation alleged against the workman were clinchingly proved as the workman has not offered his explanation as to re-issue of the tickets which were already accounted for in the S.R., that the passengers have given their statements stating that the tickets seized from them were issued to them after collecting the fare by the workman, that even after giving opportunity to the workman to give evidence before the Court, he failed to give evidence as to re-issue of the tickets which were already accounted for in the S.R. It was further noticed by the Labour Court that the petitioner has also not mentioned the reason in his explanation for his unauthorised absence to duties from 25.11.2001 to 17.01.2002. The workman was not an employee as defined in service regulations, as he was engaged as Conductor on daily wages and has not completed 240 working days by 23.11.2001. Therefore, by considering all these facts and circumstances of the case, the Labour Court has rightly passed the impugned award confirming the order dated 29.01.2002 passed by the management and the same needs no interference of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. _____________ C.V.RAMULU,J 04.06.2010 v v