HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA WRIT PETITION No. 8761OF 2004 . DATED 29th September, 2011 BETWEEN K. Hullaiah …Petitioner And The Deputy Manager, APSRTC, Kama Reddy Depot, Kamareddy, Nizamabad District and anr ….Respondents. HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA WRIT PETITION No. 8761 of 2004 ORDER: Challenging the Nil Award dated 23.3.2002 passed by the Labour Court-II, Hyderabad in I.D.No.24 of 1999, the workman filed the present Writ Petition. By the said Award, the Labour Court confirmed the punishment of removal from service imposed upon the petitioner-workman. The petitioner-workman was appointed as a Conductor in the service of the Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation ( for short ‘ the APSRTC’) on 25.5.1979. While so, the petitioner was subjected to disciplinary proceedings on 19.12.1997 in respect of certain cash and ticket irregularities alleged to have been committed by him while he was conducting a bus service en route ‘Kama Reddy – Nizamabad’. Dissatisfied with the explanation submitted by the petitioner to the charge sheet on 8.1.1998, the respondents initiated an enquiry and thereupon he was removed from service by order dated 27.5.1998. The said removal was confirmed in appeal and thereafter in review filed by the petitioner. The petitioner therefore invoked the provisions under Section 2- A(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 before the second respondent-Labour Court-II, Hyderabad in I.D.No.24 of 1999. As the petitioner did not dispute the validity of the the domestic enquiry conducted by the APSRTC, the Labour Court examined the evidence adduced in the enquiry and findings of the enquiry officer including the punishment imposed upon the workman. Ultimately, the Labour Court found no reason to interfere with the findings of the enquiry officer and by Award dated 23.3.2002 it confirmed the punishment of removal imposed upon the petitioner. Hence the present Writ Petition. The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner-workman submitted that the Labour Court failed to exercise its jurisdiction under Section 11-A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 in the proper perspective. He submitted that the findings recorded by the Labour Court are perverse and are clearly opposed to the evidence on record. He argued that the Enquiry Officer had not followed the due procedure in conducting the enquiry and that the punishment of removal imposed upon the petitioner-workman is grossly disproportionate to the charges levelled against him. He submitted that the alleged passengers were not examined in the enquiry to prove the charges levelled against the petitioner and that the petitioner had no fraudulent intention to cheat the respondent-APSRTC. In support of his arguments, he placed reliance on the judgments of this Court in M.Jayaraju Vs. Additional Industrial Tribunal-cum-Additional Labour Court, Hyderabad 2009(3) ALD (NOC43)}, S.Pulla Reddy Vs.Depot Manager, APSRTC, Cuddapah {1997 ALD(2) 4558} and B.H.K.Rao Vs.Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Visakhapatnam {2000 ALT (1) 538}. On the other hand, the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the APSRTC while reiterating the averments made in the counter affidavit, supported the findings recorded by the Labour Court. He submitted that there are no valid grounds to interfere with the findings of the Labour Court. Placing reliance on the judgments of the Apex Court in Janatha Bazar Vs Sahakari Noukaria Sangha etc. {2000(2) LLJ 1395 (SC)}, Regional Manager, RSRTC Vs. Ghanshyam Sharma {2002 (1) LLJ 234}, and KSRTC Vs B.S.Hullikatti {2001 (1) LLJ 725(SC)}, he submitted that once the act of misappropriation is proved may be for a small or large amount, there is no question of showing uncalled sympathy and reinstating the employee in service. He argued that the in as much as the findings of the Enquiry Officer are based on the evidence on record, the Labour Court on examination of the evidence on placed before it confirmed the punishment of removal imposed upon the petitioner-workman. He, therefore, he prayed for dismissal of the Writ Petition. A careful reading of the Award of the Labour Court reflects that the petitioner-workman did not choose to submit the spot explanation nor did he choose to cross-examine the checking officials. The version of the petitioner-workman that he had issued correct tickets to all the passengers but three passengers having misplaced the original tickets, they had picked up some other tickets from the floor of the bus and shown them to the checking officials due to fear of penalty, had not been accepted either by the authorities of the APSRTC or the Labour Court in as much as the petitioner-workman had attested the statements of the passengers recorded by the checking officials in his presence as true and correct. It was found that the petitioner-workman re-issued the tickets of Rs.10/- with an intention to defraud the Corporation. In the domestic enquiry, the petitioner had clearly admitted the irregularities committed him. The Labour Court having examined the evidence on record, came to the conclusion that there were no grounds to interfere with the findings of the authorities of the APSRTC. As such, the contentions of the learned counsel for the petitioner on this aspect merits no consideration. As regard the contentions of the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the punishment of removal imposed upon the petitioner is grossly disproportionate to the charges levelled against him is concerned, law on this point is well settled that once the workman is found guilty of charges levelled against him reflecting lack of integrity on his part and also failure to discharge his fiduciary obligations towards the employer-APSRTC, the strictest punishment is called for and there would be no room for lenience or application of the doctrine of proportionality. A reference may be made to the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Regional Manager, UPSRTC Vs. Hoti Lal {(2003) 3 SCC 605} wherein it was held as follows: “………..It is not only the amount involved but the mental set up, the type of duty performed and similar relevant circumstances which go into the decision-making process while considering whether the punishment is proportionate or disproportionate. If the charged employee holds a position of trust where honesty and integrity are inbuilt requirements of functioning, it would not be proper to deal with the matter leniently. Misconduct in such cases has to be dealt with iron hands. Where the person deals with public money or is engaged in financial transaction or acts in a fiduciary capacity, highest degree of integrity and trust- worthiness is must and unexceptionable……. In view of the aforesaid authoritative decision of the Apex Court, the decisions relied on by the learned Counsel for the petitioner cited supra have no application to the facts of the case on hand. Viewed from any angle, the Award of the Labour Court does not call for interference by this Court. The Writ Petition is devoid of merit and is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. ------------------------------------ -- JUSTICE ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA Dated 29th September, 2011. Msnro