THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU W.P.No.4919 of 2000 Dated:23.01.2008 Between B.G.Krishna …..Petitioner and 1.Labour Court, Ananthapur, rep., by its Presiding Officer and another. …Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU W.P.No.4919 of 2000 ORDER This writ petition is filed against an award made by the Labour Court, Ananthapur in I.D.No.198 of 1997 dated 13.10.1999. Petitioner is the workman and 2nd respondent is the Management. It appears that the petitioner was appointed as a Conductor in the year 1978. While so, since the petitioner was involved in misconduct of cash and ticket irregularities, after conducting a detailed enquiry into the matter, he was removed from service 10.6.1996. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner raised a dispute under Section 2-A (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short ‘the Act’) before the Labour Court, Anantapur and the same was disposed of on 13.10.1999 granting the relief of reinstatement with continuity of service, but without any back wages and attendant benefits. Aggrieved by the same, the present writ petition is filed. Learned counsel for the petitioner strenuously contended that the Labour Court having held that charge Nos.4, 6 and 8 were not proved, ought not to have denied attendant benefits, back wages and imposed punishment of stoppage of three increments with cumulative effect. This punishment is disproportionate to that of the misconduct alleged against the petitioner. I have perused the impugned award and other material made available on record. Charge Nos.1 to 3 and 5 are very grave in nature. The petitioner reissued tickets, which were already issued in the earlier journey and collected from the passengers. Once, these charges are proved, the question of granting any relief to the petitioner does not arise. However, the Labour Court while exercising its powers under Section 11-A of the Act felt that the punishment imposed is disproportionate to that of the misconduct and directed reinstatement, in view of long service of the petitioner with continuity of service but without any back wages, attendant benefits and further directed the respondent to impose punishment of stoppage of three increments with cumulative effect. The charges levelled against the petitioner being serious in nature, I am of the opinion that the Labour Court ought not to have granted any relief. However, it took a lenient view of the matter while exercising its powers under Section 11-A of the Act passed such an award. Therefore, I am not inclined to agree with the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner that at least imposing stoppage of three increments with cumulative effect was not necessary in the facts and circumstances. The writ petition is devoid of merits and is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. __________ 22-01-2008 rkk