IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE TWENTY FIFTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU WRIT PETITION NO : 14297 of 1999 Between: J.Bhoomaiah, S/o. Hanumaiah, R/o. 6-194 Rajampet Street Asifabad, Near Petrolbunk, Adilabad District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Industrial Tribubunal cum Labour Court Rep. by its Presiding Officer, Godavarikhani, Karimnagar District. 2 A.P.S.R.T.C., Rep. by its Depot Manager, Godavarikhani, Karimnagar 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 writ, order or direction particularly one in the nature of Writ of Certiorari, quashing the Award passed by the 1st respondent in I.D.No. 12/91 dated 12-12-1991 published on 14-8-92 on the file of 1st respondent in so far not granting the petitioner continuity of service, back wages, attendant benefits and other services benefits as arbitrary, illegal, unjust, contrary to law, contrary to statement material on record and evidence, perverse, without jurisdiction, consequently declare that the petitioner is entitled for other service benefits as prayed for above in the interest of justice and be pleased to pass such further or other orders as this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.P.SRIDHAR RAO Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 & 2: GP FOR LABOUR The Court made the following : ORDER: This writ petition is directed against an award made in I.D.No.12 of 1991 dated 12.12.1991 on the file of the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court,Godavarikhani, insofar as denying all other benefits while ordering reinstating the petitioner-workman into service. Petitioner is the workman and 2nd respondent is the Management. It appears that petitioner was appointed as a Conductor in respondent-Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation with effect from 5.1.1978 and was attached to Godavarikhani bus depot. While conducting a bus on 28.5.1984 on the route Hyderabad to Godavarikhani, a check was exercised by the checking officials at stage No.19 at about 8.00 hours and certain cash and ticket irregularities were detected and a charge sheet was issued to him enumerating the following charges: “1.For having violated the rule issue, close and start. 2.Having collected fare and failed to issue ticket to one passenger who was found alighting the bus without ticket at Siddipet, having boarded the bus at Pragnapur stage 23 to 29.” After conducting a detailed enquiry into the said charges, petitioner was removed from service. Therefore, petitioner raised a dispute under Section 2-A (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act,1947 (for short ’the Act’) before the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Godavarikhani. Before the Labour Court, it was the case of petitioner that the enquiry was not properly conducted and he was not involved any misconduct whatsoever and neither the Enquiry Officer nor the Disciplinary authority properly appreciated the evidence. Therefore, the removal of petitioner from service is arbitrary and illegal. A detailed counter-affidavit was filed on behalf of the respondent-Management before the Labour Court denying the allegations made by petitioner. It was asserted that petitioner was given full and fair opportunity to defend himself; the enquiry was properly conducted; there was sufficient evidence to hold that petitioner was guilty of the charges, which were grave in nature and, therefore, no interference was called for. Petitioner got himself examined as WW1, however no documents were marked. On behalf of the Management, MW1 was examined and documents Exs.M1 to M9 were marked. After a detailed consideration of the entire material placed before it, the labour Court came to the conclusion that the punishment of removal from service was disproportionate to that of the misconduct and therefore, directed reinstatement of petitioner, without any back wages. But the service rendered by him prior to removal from service for a period of five years was ordered to be taken into consideration for computing his inter-se-seniority without any monetary benefits. It further directed the Management to forfeit one increment for a period of one year with cumulative effect. Aggrieved thereby, the present writ petition is filed. It is the case of petitioner that the charges framed against him are trivial in nature and even otherwise they are not proved. Further assuming that the charges are proved the punishment of denying back wages and attendant benefits cannot be said to be either just or proper for the misconduct alleged and therefore, the award passed by the labour Court is liable to be set aside. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent supported the award passed by the labour Court and stated that the charges framed against petitioner are grave in nature. The Labour Court itself has taken a lenient view of the matter and directed reinstatement without continuity of service, back wages and further denied one increment with cumulative effect. Therefore, no interference is called for by this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. I have given my earnest consideration to the respective submissions made by the learned counsel on either side and perused the impugned award and other material made available on record. I am of the opinion that the findings recorded by the labour Court as to holding petitioner guilty of the charges cannot be said to be either arbitrary or illegal. The labour Court has properly appreciated the evidence and rightly came to the conclusion that petitioner-workman was guilty of the charges, however taking lenient view of the matter, directed reinstatement of petitioner into service without back wages, attendant benefits but only with nominal continuity of service that too only a period of five years prior to his reinstatement shall be taken into consideration for computing or reckoning his inter-se-seniority without any monetary benefits accruing to him on that score. However, in a case of this nature, the labour Court ought to have directed reinstatement with continuity of service without any back wages while further imposing punishment of denial of one increment with cumulative effect. Denying continuity of service would have much effect on the service conditions of the petitioner. Therefore, in the facts and circumstances of the case, I deem it appropriate to modify the award passed by the labour Court as under: “The respondent-Management is directed to reinstate petitioner-workman into service with continuity of service, without any back wages and without attendant benefits. It is needless to mention that petitioner is entitled to reckon continuity of service during the period he was out of employment for the purpose of seniority , promotion etc.” With the above modification, the writ petition is disposed of. __________ 25-04-2008 rkk ..... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1 The Industrial Tribubunal cum Labour Court Rep. by its Presiding Officer, Godavarikhani, Karimnagar District. 2 A.P.S.R.T.C., Rep. by its Depot Manager, Godavarikhani, Karimnagar district. 3. 2CD copies