IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE FIRST DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MS JUSTICE G.ROHINI WRIT PETITION NO : 7854 of 2000 Between: B.Koteswara Rao, S/o. B.Sri Ramulu. 36/7, IV Phase, K.P.H.B. Colony, Kukatpally, Hyderabad. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Vice Chairman & M.D., A.P.S.R.T.C., Musheerabad, Hyderabad. 2 The Regional Manager, A.P.S.R.T.C., Kurnool, Kurnool District. 3 The Depot Manager, A.P.S.R.T.C., Adoni Depot., Kurnool District. .....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 issue a Writ Order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the award to the extent of not granted backwages and deferring the 3 annual increments without cumulative effect passed in I.D.No.29/99 is illegal, arbitrary, and violative of Article 21 of the Constitution of India, consequently direct the respondents to pay backwages from the date of 31/08/1994, reinstate the petitioner, and allow all other benefits to the petitioner, and grant such other relief as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.G.ALLABAKASH Counsel for the Respondent No.: SMT.W.V.S.RAJESWARI The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE MS JUSTICE G.ROHINI Writ Petition No.7854 of 2000 ORDER: This writ petition is filed seeking a declaration that the order passed by the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Ananthapur dated 13.5.1999 in I.D.No.29 of 1996 to the extent of denying back wages and deferring three annual increments without cumulative effect, as arbitrary and illegal. The petitioner herein was working as a Conductor with the Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation, at the relevant point of time. On 14.12.1993, while he was conducting service in bus No.AEZ 4189, on the route Adoni- Gadwal, a check was exercised by the T.T.I. and alleging certain cash and ticket irregularities, a charge memo dated 14.12.1993 was issued. The petitioner submitted his explanation denying the allegations. However, the Enquiry Officer held that the petitioner was guilty of all the charges and accordingly, by order dated 31.8.1994, he was removed from service. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner filed I.D.No.29 of 1996 under Section 2-A (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act on the file of the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Ananthapur. The Tribunal below having found that the checking officials did not find excess cash in the cash bag of the petitioner and the statements of the passengers were also not recorded, held that none of the charges can be held to be proved. It was also held that the only omission on the part of the workman, in not using the nipper for punching the tickets was also properly explained by him. Thus it was concluded that the order of removal was not justified and accordingly, the reinstatement of the petitioner was ordered. However, since there was neither a plea nor any evidence on the part of the workman to show that he was not gainfully employed during the period of removal, back-wages were not granted, and three annual increments without cumulative effect were deferred. Having heard the learned counsel for both the parties and keeping in view the settled principles of law, though I am unable to find fault with the conclusion of the Tribunal below in denying the back wages, having regard to the finding recorded by the Tribunal that the petitioner had no intention to re-issue the tickets, I am of the opinion that even the minor penalty of deferment of three annual increments without cumulative effect, is unwarranted. Accordingly, to the said extent, the impugned order dated 13.05.1999 in I.D.No.29 of 2006 is set aside. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of. No costs. _______________ Justice G.Rohini Date:01.04.2009 mrb