THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU WRIT PETITION No.4412 OF 2005 Dated: 09.04.2010 Between : E.Venkat Reddy ….. Petitioner a n d The Depot Manager & another ….. Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU WRIT PETITION No.4412 OF 2005 ORDER: This writ petition is filed challenging the award dated 31.03.2003 made in I.D.No.18 of 2000 by the Industrial Tribunal-I, Hyderabad, whereunder the reference made under Section 10 (i) (a) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, (for short ‘the Act’) for adjudication of the issue “whether the Depot Manager, APSRTC, Ranigunj-II Depot, was justified in imposing the punishment of ceasing of service of Sri E.Venkat Reddy, Conductor, from 16.02.1987 till reporting for duty at Kushaiguda Depot and treating the period of suspension as ‘not on duty’?” was answered against the petitioner-workman. Petitioner is the workman and respondent is the Management of A.P.S.R.T.C. It appears, the petitioner was appointed as a conductor in Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation w.e.f.16.02.1987. On 27.03.1993 while he was conducting bus bearing No.7634 on city route No.86N, the bus was checked at stage No.9/10 at 0715 hours and the officials found certain cash and ticketing irregularities, on the basis of which, charge memo was issued to the petitioner. Thereafter, he was charge sheeted on 31.03.1993 enumerating the following charges: 1) For having failed to complete the ticket issues at TIC Point i.e. Rajadhani towards V.V.Nagar, while conducting Bus No.7634 on route No.86N on 27.03.1993 at about 7.15 hours 2) For having failed to issue tickets to 3 individual passengers who were found alighting at stage No.9/10 (Chaitanyapuri X roads) inspite of collecting requisite fare of 75 ps each at boarding point itself i.e., stage No.9 (Dilsukhnagar) 3) For having purchased 3 tickets of 75 ps. Denomination bearing Nos.208/710661 to 663 on sighting the TTIS at stage No.9 After conducting a detailed enquiry and completing the formalities, the disciplinary authority, the respondent herein, passed an order reinstating the petitioner while denying the services rendered by the petitioner in the Corporation from 16.02.1987 till the date of reporting to duty and further the period of suspension was treated as ‘not on duty’. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner raised a dispute before the Conciliation Officer and on failure of conciliation, the matter was reported to the Government and the Government in turn referred matter to the Industrial Tribunal-I, Hyderabad, for adjudication. Before the Labour Court, the petitioner raised many grounds such as the enquiry was not properly conducted, the punishment imposed was disproportionate to that of the alleged misconduct and imposing punishment is without jurisdiction. The same was resisted by the respondent-management. The petitioner examined himself as WW1 and marked Exs.W.1 to W.10. On behalf of respondents, MW1 was examined and Ex.M1 was marked. After detailed consideration of the entire material placed before it, the Labour Court held that the enquiry was conducted properly and the same is valid and the charges framed against the petitioners are proved. Insofar as the jurisdiction of the respondent as per regulation No.8 of A.P.S.R.T.C. Employees (Classification, Control and Appeal) Regulations, 1967, was concerned the Tribunal simply held that regulation No.8 made it clear that the respondent-Depot Manager is empowered to impose penalties even severe to ceasing of service. Aggrieved thereby, the present writ petition is filed. Heard both sides. At the outset I am of the opinion that the Labour Court has made pedantic approach instead of approaching the problem on juristic procedure. It simply stated that the perusal of regulation No.8 of A.P.S.R.T.C. Employees (Classification, Control and Appeal) Regulations, 1967, made it clear that the respondent-Depot Manager is empowered to impose penalties even severe to ceasing of service. After giving earnest consideration to the submissions made by learned counsel on either side, perusing the impugned order and the material on record, the only question falls for consideration in this case is ‘whether the action of Depot Manager in imposing punishment of ceasing of services rendered by the petitioner from the date of his appointment till the date of his reporting to duty is permissible under law?” Admittedly, there is no such enumerated penalty, which the respondent-Depot Manager can impose on the petitioner. Regulation 8 of A.P.S.R.T.C. Employees (Classification, Control and Appeal) Regulations, 1967, does not deal with such a power vested in the Depot Manager, which reads as under: 8. Penalties : (1) The following penalties may, for good and sufficient reason and as hereinafter provided, be imposed upon an employees namely:- (i) censure; (ii) withholding of the privilege of free passes or privilege ticket orders or both for travel on the railway or the bus services of the Corporation, as the case may be, in the case of employees to whom such privilege or privileges are admissible; (iii) fine, in the case of persons for whom such penalty is permissible under these Regulations, vide sub-clause (3); (iv) withholding of increments; (v) recovery from pay of the whole or part of any pecuniary loss cause to the Corporation by an employee’s negligence or breach of orders; (vi) suspension, where a person has already been suspended under regulation 18 pending enquiry into his conduct, to the extent considered necessary by the authority imposing the penalty; (vii) reduction to a lower rank in the seniority list or to a lower post or time-scale, whether in the same class of service or in another class, or to a lower stage in a time-scale; (viii) removal from the service of the Corporation which does not disqualify from future employment; (ix) dismissal from the service of the Corporation which ordinarily disqualifies from future employment. Explanation : The following shall not amount to a penalty with the meaning of the Regulation : (1) Withholding of increments of an employees for failure to pass a departmental examination or to quality in certain duties or subjects in accordance with the regulations or orders governing the service or post or terms of his appointment. (2) Stoppage of an employee at the efficiency bar in the time-scale on the ground of his unfitness to cross the bar. (3) Reversion to a lower service, grade or post of an employee officiating in a higher service, grade or post on the ground that he is considered, after trail, to be unsuitable for such higher service, grade or post or on administrative grounds unconnected with his conduct. (4) Reversion to his permanent service, grade or post of an employee appointed on probation to another service, grade or post, during or at the end of the period of probation in accordance with the terms of his appointment or the regulations or resolution governing probation. (5) Termination of the services- (a) of an employee appointed on probation during or at the end of the period of probation, in accordance with the terms of his appointment or the regulations or resolution governing probation; or (b) of an employee in accordance with the general conditions of service applicable to permanent or temporary employment, as the case may be; or (c) of an employee engaged under an agreement in accordance with the terms of such agreement; or (d) for reasons of mental or physical incapacity duly certified by a medical officer specified by the Corporation in that behalf. (2) The penalty of with-holding or forfeiture of the privilege of free passes or privilege ticket orders shall be imposed only in connection with an abuse of the particular privilege and shall not be imposed as an alternative to any other penalty, e.g., reduction of pay. It may however be imposed in addition to any other penalty which may be inflicted in respect of the same act or omission on the part of an employee. (3) The penalty of fine as such shall not be imposed on an employee in the Class I or Class II services. (4) The penalty of withholding of promotion may be imposed in addition to any of the other penalties that may be imposed in respect of the same act or omission on the part of an employee. (5) The penalty of recovery from pay of the whole or part of any pecuniary loss caused to the Corporation by an employee’s negligence or breach of orders, may be imposed in addition to any of the penalty which may be inflicted in respect of the same act of negligence or breach of orders. Thus, none of the above referred clauses, where the penalties are enumerated, indicate that the Depot Manager is empowered to impose such a punishment. Under those circumstances, I am of the opinion that the award passed by the Labour Court do not stand the scrutiny of law. Therefore, the same is set aside and the following relief is ordered: “The petitioner-workman is entitled for reinstatement with continuity of service but without any back wages and other attendant benefits. However, his services from the date of appointment i.e. on 16.12.1987 till the date of reporting the duty shall be treated as continuous service for the purpose of retiral benefits.” The writ petition is accordingly disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. ______________ C.V.RAMULU, J 9th April, 2010 SUR