THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU W.P.No.5620 of 2004 23-08-2010 Between: The Depot Manager, APSRTC, Kalyanadurg Depot, Anantapur District ...Petitioner Vs. The Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Ananthbapur and another ..Respondents THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU W.P.No.5620 of 2004 ORAL ORDER: The writ petition is directed against award 11-11-2003 in I.D.No.85 of 2001 on the file of the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Anantapur (The Tribunal) whereunder the application filed by the 2nd respondent under Section 2(A) 2 of the Industrial Disputes Act,1947 ( for short “the Act”) seeking to set aside the removal order passed on 22-11-1999 and to direct the petitioner herein to reinstate him into service with continuity of full back wages and other attendant benefits was partly allowed directing reinstatement with continuity of service and half back wages for the period from 10-02-2001 till the date of his reinstatement i.e., 01-03-2004. It appears that the petitioner while conducting bus bearing No.2630 on the route Kalyanadurg to Peruru, on 18-08-1999 at about 11.30 hours a check was exercised and found some ticket irregularities and therefore a charge sheet was issued on 01-09-199 enumerating the following charges. (1) For having violated the rule issue and start which constitutes misconduct under Reg.28(xxxi) of APSRTC Employees (conduct) Reg.1963. (2) For having failed to collect the fare and issue the ticket s to a batch of five passengers found alighting at Achampalli without tickets who boarded the bus at Kolimigundla and bound for Achampalli Ex. Stages 10/11, hence the TTI have obtained TPT No.418/688878 to 882 of Rs.2.50 ps den. For each passenger and imposed a fine of Rs.100/- which constitutes misconduct under Reg.28(iv)(a) of APSRTC Employees (Conduct) Reg.1963. (3) For having closed the Ticket Numbers denominations in the SR against stage No.11 wtihout completing the above ticket issues which constitutes misconduct under Respondent.28(xxxii) of APSRTC Employees (conduct) Reg.1963. After calling for an explanation and conducting a detailed inquiry into the matter, the disciplinary authority passed an order removing the 2nd respondent from service by proceedings dated 22-11-1999. The appeal and review petitions filed by the 2nd respondent were rejected and therefore he instituted an Industrial Dispute in I.D.No.85 of 2001 on the file of Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Anantapur under Section 2A(2) of the Act. The case of the petitioner before the Tribunal is that the inquiry was not properly conducted and absolutely there was no misconduct as alleged and the charges leveled are vague in nature and there was no evidence to hold him guilty of said charges; even otherwise imposing punishment of removal from service was disproportionate to that of misconduct. The respondent/petitioner filed a detailed counter denying the allegations made by the 2nd respondent herein. Further the contention of the respondent in the I.D is that the conduct of the workman in the past record was not proper; he was censured on three occasions and his annual increments were deferred on three occasions. Though no oral or documentary evidence was let in, on the basis of the record available the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the punishment of removal from service is grossly disproportionate to that of misconduct proved and directed reinstatement of the workman into service but without back wages from 22-11-1999 till the date of filing of claim petition i.e., 09-02- 2001 and granted half back wages for the period from 10-02-2001 till the date of reinstatement. Aggrieved against the award, the APSRTC has filed the present writ petition. The learned counsel for the APSRTC strenuously contended that the charges are grave in nature and the petitioner failed to collect the fare and issue the tickets to a batch of five passengers who found alighting at Achampalli without tickets at Ex.stages 10/1; and closed the ticket numbers denominations in the SR against stage No.11 without completing the above tickets. Therefore, the Tribunal was not right in setting aside the removal order and directing reinstatement with continuity of service and other attendant benefits like 50% of the back wages etc., which is erroneous. Per contra, the learned counsel for the 2nd respondent/workman supported the award passed by the Tribunal and submitted that no ground is made out for interference under Article 226 of the Constitution. I have given my earnest consideration to the respective submissions made by either side and perused the impugned order. At the outset, it is seen that five passengers boarded the bus at Stage No.10/11, in the upward journey to be alighted at Stage No.11 and when the bus reached at Stage No.11, all the five passengers were getting down without tickets and moreover the workman closed the SR up to Stage No.11 without completing the issue of tickets against the said passengers. Therefore, in the very nature of the allegations made which are not disputed, it must be read that the 2nd respondent has committed some misconduct in not collecting the fare and issuing the tickets timely and the passengers were found ticket less while alighting the bus; and the SR was closed up to Stage No.11. In this regard, the Tribunal recorded its findings as under:- “Though the charges leveled against the claimant have been proved but it has to be seen whether the punishment is in gross disproportionate to the proved misconduct are not. According to claimant there is no request stage between State No.10 and 11. It is his case that he issued tickets to all the passengers at stage No.10 and then closed the SR. It is his further case that in the bus was nearing the stage No.11, the passengers referred in the charges boarded the bus and they caused delay in tendering the fare. It is an admitted case that the passengers did not pay the bus fare to the claimant. It is also an admitted case that the TTIs imposed fine of Rs.100/- on those passengers and this shows that the passengers were at fault and they caused delay in tendering the bus fare. As far as the malafide intention is concerned since the claimant had not yet collected the bus fare from the said passengers no malafide intention can be attributed to him. As far as closing of SR is concerned since there is no request stage between the stage No.10 and 11, version of the claimant is probable. So, in the above circumstances, it appears that the punishment imposed is grossly disproportionate to the proved misconduct. As seen from the record, the claimant was censured on three occasions and his annual increments were deferred on three occasions.” While exercising its discretionary powers under Section 11-A of the Act, the Tribunal passed the award setting aside the removal order passed by the Management on 22-11-1999 and further directed reinstatement of the workman without back wages from 22-11-1999 till the date of filing of claim petition i.e., 09-02-2001 and further directed that the workman is entitled to half back wages for the period from 10-02-2001 till the date of his reinstatement. Therefore, I am of the considered opinion that the Tribunal has liberally granted back wages in a case of this nature. The Tribunal in fact noticed that the workman was censured on three occasions and his annual increments were deferred on three occasions for the similar conduct. Therefore awarding of even half of the back wages from 10-02-2001 till the date of reinstatement was not desirable. Therefore, the award passed by the Tribunal is modified to read as under:- “ The petitioner (respondent in the I.D) is directed to reinstate the 2nd respondent (claimant in the I.D.) with continuity of service but without any back wages. However, the workman is entitled for attendant benefits for the period he was out of employment. The further award passed by the Labour Court directing the petitioner herein to impose a punishment of deferment of two annual grade increments with cumulative effect is upheld.” The writ petition is disposed of as above. No order as to costs. _____________ C.V.RAMULU,J 23rd AUGUST 2010 TSNR