IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) , THE SECOND DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION NO : 36984 of 1998 Between: The Depot Manager, A.P.S.R.T.C. Sangareddy Bus Depot, Medak District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 Md.Tayyab Pasha, S/o pasha Mian, R/o Velimala Village & Post, Via.Muthangi, Ramachandrapuram Mandal, Medak District. 2 The Persiding Officer, labour Court-II, Hyderabad. .....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 call for the records relating to the award in I.D.No.60/96, dt.3-7-97 on the file of the Labour Court-II, Hyd., and quash the same as arbitrary and illegal by way of issue of Writ certiorari or any other appropriate Writ, order or orders as Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstaces of the case Counsel for the Petitioner:SMT.B.G.UMA DEVI Counsel for the Respondent No.: MR.A.K.JAYAPRAKASH RAO The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION No. 36984 of 1998 ORDER: Aggrieved by the award of the Labour Court-II, Hyderabad, in I.D. No. 60 of 1996 dated 03.07.1997, the Depot Manager, APSRTC is before this Court. The first respondent, a conductor with the APSRTC, was conducting the bus from Sangareddy to Jubilee Bus Station at Hyderabad when a check was exercised. A charge memo was issued for certain cash and ticket irregularities on 06.11.1995. The charges read as under: 1. For having failed to observe the rule of issue and start, which is mis- conduct in terms of Reg. 28(xxxii) of APSRTC Employees (Conduct) Regulation, 1963. 2. For having collected an amount of Rs.1.75 from an individual passenger, and Rs.2.25 each from a batch of four lady passengers who boarded the bus at Vaddepally village (Stage No. 7) of which the individual passengers his alighting without ticket at Nagaram X Road (7/8) and the abtch of 4 passengers bound for Royapalli (Stage No. 9) and failed to issue them the tickets, which constitutes mis-conduct under Reg. 28(xxv) of APSRTC Employees (Conduct) Reg. 1963.” An enquiry was held and, on the first respondent being found guilty of the charges, he was imposed the punishment of removal from service by order dated 13.05.1996. Aggrieved thereby the first respondent invoked the jurisdiction of the Labour Court which, while holding the charges to have been established, interfered with the quantum of punishment and directed the petitioner herein to reinstate the first respondent into service with all attendant benefits such as continuity of service but with 50% back wages. Smt. B.G. Umadevi, learned Standing Counsel for the petitioner, would contend that, since the charges held established are of having failed to issue tickets even after collecting the fare, the charge held established is, in effect, defalcation of monies of the corporation. Learned Standing Counsel would contend that for such grave and serious acts of misconduct of corruption, the Labour Court has shown undue sympathy in favour of the first respondent-workman in not only directing his reinstatement into service but restricting denial of back wages only to 50%. Sri A.K. Jayaprakash Rao, learned Counsel for the first respondent on the other hand, would contend that the Labour Court had erred in holding that the charges were established. Learned Counsel would seek to make submissions on merits to contend that the charge had, in effect, not been established and that the findings of the enquiry officer are perverse. It is necessary to note that the workman, despite having been denied 50% back wages, has not chosen to invoke the jurisdiction of this Court challenging the award. In a writ petition filed by the Corporation, I see no justification in examining the contention urged on behalf of the workman regarding the finding recorded by the Labour Court upholding the conclusion of the disciplinary authority that the charges were established more so when the workman has not chosen to challenge the validity of the award and has permitted it to attain finality in so far as the relief denied to him is concerned. The only question which necessitates examination in this writ petition is with regards the quantum of punishment and, since the Labour Court has held the charges of failure to issue tickets despite collecting the fare, (which in effect is misappropriation), it could not have shown such lenience in favour of the workman in not only permitting his reinstatement into service but to deny him only 50% of the back wages. The conductors of the APSRTC work in a fiduciary capacity. I n Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation Vs. B.S. Hullikatti[1], the Supreme Court observed that it was the responsibility of bus conductor to collect correct fares from the passengers and deposit the same in the Corporation, that conductors act in a fiduciary capacity, that it would be gross misconduct if, knowingly, they did not collect any fare or the correct amount of fare and that, in such cases, interference with the punishment of dismissal from service was a case of misplaced sympathy by the Labour Court. I n Regional Manager, Rajastan State Road Transport Corporation Vs. Ghanshyam Sharma[2], the Supreme Court held that the proved acts amounted either to a case of dishonesty or of gross negligence and bus conductors, who by their actions or inactions cause financial loss to the Corporation, were not fit to be retained in service. In V. Ramana Vs. A.P.S.R.T.C.[3], the Supreme Court held that Courts/Tribunals should not interfere unless the punishment imposed by the disciplinary authority or the appellate authority shocks the conscience of the Court/Tribunal. The Labour Court, while exercising its jurisdiction under Section 11-A of the Industrial Disputes Act, has the power to interfere with the punishment. However such interference cannot be as a matter of course or on the ground of misplaced sympathy. Since the charges held established are, in effect, of misappropriation, the punishment substituted by the Labour Court is unduly lenient and is a clear case of misplaced sympathy. I consider it appropriate, therefore, to set aside the Award only to the limited extent the Labour Court has substituted the punishment imposed by the employer of removal from service with that of reinstatement with 50% back wages. The matter is remanded back to the Labour Court for its consideration afresh only on the quantum of punishment. Since the dispute relates to the year 1996, and more than twelve years has elapsed since then, it is but appropriate that the Labour Court examines the question of quantum of punishment, exercises its discretion under Section 11-A after hearing both sides and passes an Award within a period of four months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Needless to state that, since the first respondent has been reinstated into service consequent upon the Award of the Labour Court and has been in service for more than a decade, it is but appropriate that status quo as on today be maintained till the Labour Court passes an Award afresh in accordance with law. The writ petition is disposed of accordingly. However, in the circumstances, without costs. _______________________________ Date: 02.04.2008 RAMESH RANGANATHAN, J MRKR To 1.2CCs to 2.2CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WP{JPK} [1] AIR 2001 SC 930 [2] 2002(1) LLJ 234 [3] AIR 2005 SC 3417