Hon’ble Smt. Justice T. Meena Kumari WRIT PETITION Nos. 26534 of 1999 and 425 of 2000 COMMON ORDER: Since the issue involved in both the writ petitions being the same, they are clubbed and disposed of by this common order. Challenging the Award passed by the Labour Court-I, Hyderabad in I.D. No.75 of 1997, dated 18.11.1998, the A.P.S.R.T.C. filed Writ Petition No. 26534 of 1999; whereas Writ Petition No. 425 of 2000 is filed by the workman. It would suffice if the facts in W.P. No. 26534 of 1999 are narrated. The respondent-workman was appointed by the petitioner-Corporation as Conductor on 18.3.1978 on daily wage basis. While so, on 29/7/1991, when he was conducting the bus on J.P. Darga route, a check was conducted at Stage No. 5/4 by the checking officials of the Corporation. On finding that the workman indulged himself in serious cash and ticket irregularities, a departmental enquiry was initiated. The workman was charged of (1) for having collected the fare of Rs.7.50 ps., from a batch of two passengers and a chargeable child aged 7 years and issued ticket bearing Nos. B89/ 823737 to 740 of Rs.1.50 ps., deno. (E4) and failed to issue ticket to a child passenger, who boarded the bus at Shamshabad and were bound for Charminar, ex-Stages 6 to 1, hence TTIs obtained TPT Nos. B/89/823743 of Rs.1.50 ps., deno.; (2) for having failed to observe the Rule of issue and start and 3) for having closed the tray numbers upto stage No.5 without completing the ticket issues. The workman submitted his explanation to the said charge memo. On receipt of explanation from the workman, a departmental enquiry was conducted and the punishment of removal from service by proceedings dated 8.5.1992 was imposed. Challenging the said order, the workman raised a dispute before the Labour Court under Section 2-A(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act. Through its Award dated 18.11.1998, the Labour Court, while modifying the punishment to that of stoppage of one increment without cumulative effect, however, directed the Corporation to reinstate the workman into service with continuity of service, attendant benefits and full back wages. Challenging the said Award, the Corporation filed the present writ petition. This Court while admitting the writ petition on 28.12.1999, granted interim stay subject to the condition that the petitioner reinstates the workman within one week and this Court while making the said order absolute, however, directed the petitioner to deposit the entire amount of back wages awarded by the Labour Court in the I.D. within four weeks and on such deposit, the respondent was permitted to withdraw half of the amount by furnishing security and the remaining half without furnishing any security. It is stated that pursuant to the said order, the workman has withdrawn an amount of Rs.1,06,589/- on 22.7.2000 and the balance is still lying with the Labour Court. Heard the learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of A.P.S.R.T.C. and the learned counsel for the respondent-workman and perused the impugned Award of the Labour Court. On a perusal of the material on record, it is seen that the petitioner has issued four tickets of Rs.1.50 denomination by collecting Rs.7.50 from a batch of two passengers and failed to issue any ticket to the child passenger. In view of the fact that the workman has issued tickets to as many as 48 passengers in the said bus, it cannot be said that the workman has got any mala fide intention to defraud the Corporation by not issuing the ticket to the lone child passenger or he has pocketed the said money. Even assuming that the mis-conduct alleged against the workman is proved, still the punishment of removal imposed by the Corporation against the workman is shockingly disproportionate, as rightly held by the Labour Court. Hence, the Award of the Labour Court modifying the punishment of removal needs no interference. In the circumstances, I do not find any reason to interfere with the impugned Award of the Labour Court. W.P. No. 26534 of 2009 is accordingly dismissed. As the respondent is reinstated into service with continuity of service and full back wages in pursuance of the interim order granted by this Court and since the Award of the Labour Court has been upheld by this Court, the respondent is allowed to withdraw the balance amount of Rs.1,06,589/-, which is lying with the Labour Court. Now, coming to the other writ petition, namely W.P. No. 425 of 2000 is concerned, in view of the orders passed by me dismissing Writ Petition No. 26534 of 2009 filed by the Corporation, no further orders are necessary in this writ petition. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. In the result, W.P. Nos. 26534 of 2009 and 425 of 200 are dismissed. No costs. __________________ T. Meena Kumari,J Date: 20th August, 2010 pnb