HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.24826 OF 2000 ORDER: Petitioner was appointed as Conductor in Warangal – I Depot of the Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation. On 21-03- 1996, while he was conducting the service on the route Hanamkonda to Mulugu and Parkal, a check was exercised at Stage No.27. It was found that he failed to collect fare and issue tickets to a batch of passengers and also collected Rs.3-25 ps. from a lady passenger and did not issue ticket. Charges were framed, domestic enquiry was conducted and through order, dated 23-03-1987, petitioner was dismissed from service. After exhausting the departmental remedies, the petitioner filed I.D. No.114 of 1991 before the Industrial Tribunal – cum – Labour Court, Warangal. Through award dated 19-08-1997, the Labour Court has set aside the order of dismissal and directed that the petitioner shall be reinstated into service as ‘Fresh Recruit’ as conductor. Petitioner was denied continuity of service, back wages and all other attendant benefits. Petitioner feels aggrieved by the denial of such reliefs. 2. Heard Sri V. Narsimha Goud, learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for the respondent. 3. The Labour Court did not find any defect in the domestic enquiry. The charges that were proved against the petitioner relate to failure to collect fare and issuance of tickets as well as failure to issue ticket, after collection of fare, to one passenger. The Labour Court exercised its discretion under Section 11-A of the Industrial Disputes Act and directed reinstatement of the petitioner as fresh conductor. By the time the award was passed, the petitioner had quite many years of service to his credit. This Court held that the conduct rules do not provide for the appointment of an employee, afresh as punishment at all. If that principle is to be applied, the award of Labour Court be set aside and the matter has to go back to the Labour Court. This Court feels that even while denying the benefits of back wages and attendant charges to the petitioner, he can be extended the relief of continuity of service for the limited purpose of determining the retirement benefits. 4. Hence, the Writ Petition is partly allowed, directing that the petitioner shall be entitled to continuity of service, limited for the purpose of determining the retirement benefits and for no other purpose. There shall be no order as to costs. ____________________ L. NARASIMHA REDDY, J December 02, 2010. KTL