HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.SURI APPA RAO Writ Petition No.15475 of 2000 Date: 25-3-2011 Between The Depot Manager, A.P.S.R.T.C., Warangal-I Depot, Warangal … Petitioner and 1. S.S.Prakash and another … Respondents HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.SURI APPA RAO Writ Petition No.15475 of 2000 Order: Aggrieved by the award dated 16-02-2000 in I.D.No.135 of 1995 passed by the Judge, Industrial Tribunal cum Labour Court, Warangal the respondent therein i.e., the Depot Manager, Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation, Bus Depot, Warangal-I, Warangal district has filed this writ petition to quash the said award as being illegal, arbitrary and unjust. 2. For the sake of convenience, the parties herein are referred to as ‘the Corporation’, ‘workman’ and ‘the tribunal’, respectively. 3. The facts of the case, in brief, are as under: The workman, who was an ex-Conductor of the Corporation, filed a petition before the tribunal under Section 2-A(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short, ‘the Act’) to set aside the removal order dated 07-12-1993 passed against him by the Corporation and to direct the Corporation to reinstate him into service as Conductor with all benefits on the grounds that he has not committed any irregularity amounting to misconduct, that the Enquiry Officer failed to appreciate the evidence on correct lines, that the punishment of removal is shockingly disproportionate, that the order of removal shall be set aside and that therefore, he shall be reinstated into service with all benefits. 4. The Corporation contended that on 25-5-1993 a check was exercised on the bus bearing No.5221 on route Warangal to Sholapur at Stage No.14 Narsi and checking officials found cash and ticket irregularities against the workman. Therefore, 3 charges were framed against the workman and a domestic enquiry was conducted. The Enquiry Officer found that all the charges were proved. Therefore, the workman was removed from service for proved misconduct and there were no grounds to set aside the removal order. 5. Considering the contentions of both parties and also relying on a judgment of this Court in Divisional Manager, APSRTC, Adilabad Vs. E.Raga Reddy (1999 (5) ALT 450), the tribunal allowed the petition filed by the workman and set aside the order of removal dated 07-12-1993 with the following observations: “The respondent shall reinstate the petitioner into service as conductor with 50% of back wages, from the date of removal till the date of reinstatement as per this award. Petitioner is not entitled for any monetary benefits in the period of suspension. Suspension period shall not be counted for any purpose. After reinstatement, two increments of the petitioner shall be stopped with cumulative effect. This award shall come into force within 30 days or from the date of its publication, whichever is earlier by virtue of the powers conferred to this court under Sec.17A of I.D.Act.” 6. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the Corporation has filed this writ petition. 7. This Court by an order dated 23-8-2000 in W.P.M.P.No.19650 of 2000 has granted interim suspension of the operation of the impugned award on condition of the Corporation complying with Section 17-B of the Act. 8. The workman filed W.V.M.P.No.2952 of 2003 under Section 151 of C.P.C., to vacate the said order of interim suspension dated 23- 8-2000 in W.P.M.P.No.19650 of 2000, by filing a Counter-Affidavit on the ground that in pursuance of the impugned award he reported for duty and he was reinstated into service but the Corporation obtained stay for back wages. 9. The point for consideration is, whether there are valid grounds warranting interference of this Court in the impugned award ? 10. Point:- The learned standing counsel for the petitioner- Corporation submitted that after conducting a detailed enquiry into the charges framed against the 1st respondent-workman, he was removed from service by order dated 07-12-1993 and the order of removal was confirmed by the Senior Manager, Warangal by order dated 16-12- 1994 and the appellate order was affirmed by the Regional Manager, Warangal by order dated 12-7-1995. The tribunal which passed the award rightly held that the domestic enquiry was valid, but passed the impugned award without giving any cogent reasons and the award of the tribunal is illegal and arbitrary. 11. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the 1st respondent- workman contended that from the date of removal of the workman from service on 07-12-1993 till he was reinstated into service in August, 2000 he was unemployed and could not secure any alternate employment in spite of his best efforts and therefore, he is entitled for back wages. 12. As seen from the contention of the learned counsel for the 1st respondent-workman, the workman was reinstated into service but he was not paid 50% of back wages from the date of his removal from the service till the date of reinstatement as per the award in view of the interim order of suspension dated 23-8-2000 in W.P.M.P.No.19650 of 2000 passed by this Court. 13. Admittedly, the petitioner-Corporation framed the following charges against the workman: (1) For having failed to observe the rule ‘issue and start’. (2) For your failure to issue tickets even after collecting the requisite fare of Rs.27/- at the rate of Rs.5.50 ps each from a batch of five passengers who were found alighting without tickets at Narsi having boarded the bus at Bilori, ex.stages 13 to 14. (3) For having already closed the tray numbers of all denominations up to the place of check i.e., Narsi, Stage 14 without completing the above issues. 14. As per the principles laid down by this Court in E.Raga Reddy’s case (supra), which was relied on by the learned counsel, the tribunal which is competent to reappreciate the evidence recorded in domestic enquiry and after judiciously examining the evidence, the tribunal found that the irregularity committed by the workman is only negligence, not amounting to misconduct and that the punishment of removal was harsh and unwarranted. 15. The main charge framed against the workman was that he failed to issue tickets to 5 passengers who boarded the bus at Nizamabad and they are bound to Bhiloli. They proceeded from Bhiloli to Narsi up to the point of check without tickets. But, according to the workman 5 passengers were asleep and they suddenly wake up after crossing the stage Bhiloli travelling beyond Bhiloli. When they are about to get down at stage No.14 and while he was issuing tickets to them, the check took place. 16. As seen from the record, admittedly no passengers were boarded the bus at Bhiloli Stage No.13. Therefore, the five passengers could not get down as they were not aware that the bus reached the place where they have to get down. The workman being the conductor of the bus, who issued tickets to the passengers, up to Bhiloli is expected to inform the five passengers even if they were asleep that the bus reached Bhiloli up to which stage they have taken tickets. The finding of the tribunal is that it is a clear case of negligence not amounting to misconduct to defraud the Corporation. 17. The tribunal while reappreciating the evidence observed at paragraph 7 of the impugned award as under: “This Tribunal examined the evidence judiciously and found the irregularity committed by the petitioner is only negligence, not amounting misconduct. Charge No.2 shall be taken as proved only to the extent. Charges 1 and 3 are consequential in nature and as they can also be taken as proved. Point No.2 is answered accordingly.” 18. Thus the tribunal while reappreciating the evidence on record came to a conclusion that the charges framed against the workman were proved. But the act of the workman in view of the facts and circumstances is only negligence not amounting to misconduct and to defraud the Corporation. Therefore, while passing the order for reinstatement of the workman into service he was granted only 50% of the back wages from the date of removal till the date of reinstatement on account of the proved negligence. Therefore, the finding of the tribunal considering the facts and circumstances is justified and sustainable. 19. The learned standing counsel for the Corporation has relied on a judgment of this Court in A.P. Paper Mills Ltd. v. I.T.-cum- Labour Court, Visakhapatnam[1]. In the said case, the Labour Court directed the workman to be reinstated into service with continuity of service while holding domestic enquiry was valid and no finding as to perversity of findings of findings of domestic enquiry nor any reasons given as to why it felt that this was a ‘proper’ case to re-appreciate evidence. The reappreciation of entire evidence by Labour Court and coming to conclusion that there was not ‘much’ evidence to support the termination, not warranted. The relief granted to the respondent- workman cannot be upheld. 20. Relying on the above decision, the learned standing counsel for the Corporation submitted that the tribunal cannot interfere with the punishment awarded to the workman having found that the charges are proved against him. 21. Section 11-A of the Act reads as under: “Power of Labour Courts, Tribunals and National Tribunals to give appropriate relief in case of discharge or dismissal of Workmen:-- Where an industrial dispute relating to the discharge or dismissal of a workman has been referred to a Labour Court, Tribunal or National Tribunal for adjudication and, in the course of the adjudication proceedings, the Labour Court, Tribunal or National Tribunal, as the case may be, is satisfied that the order of discharge or dismissal was not justified, it may, by its award, set aside the order of discharge or dismissal and direct re-instatement of the workman on such terms and conditions, if any, as it thinks fit, or give such other relief to the workman including the award of any lesser punishment in lieu of discharge or dismissal as the circumstances of the case may require: Provided that in any proceeding under this Section the Labour Court, Tribunal or National Tribunal, as the case may be, shall rely only on the materials on record and shall not take any fresh evidence in relation to the matter.” 22. Therefore, as per Section 11-A of the Act, the Labour Court has jurisdiction and power to interfere with the quantum of punishment, however, the discretion has to be used judiciously. In the instant case, though confirmed the findings of the Enquiry Officer, the tribunal felt that the quantum of punishment awarded by the Enquiry Officer is harsh and unwarranted and awarded lesser punishment in view of the facts and circumstances of the case and passed the impugned award. 23. In view of the above facts and circumstances, the tribunal was justified in passing the impugned award treating the act of the workman as a clear case of negligence and since the check was conducted at the last stage there was no loss to the Corporation and in that view of the matter, I find that there is no illegality or irregularity in passing the impugned award after reappreciating the evidence recorded in domestic enquiry. Since the workman was already reinstated into service, he is entitled for 50% of the back wages. Therefore, there are no valid grounds to interfere with the impugned award passed by the tribunal. 24. The writ petition is, therefore, liable to be dismissed and is dismissed accordingly confirming the impugned award passed by the tribunal. As a sequel to the order passed by this Court, the order of interim suspension dated 23-8-2000 in W.P.M.P.No.19650 of 2000 passed by this Court is vacated and the Corporation is directed to pay 50% of the back wages to the workman from the date of his removal from service i.e., 07-12-1993 till the date of reinstatement, as was ordered by the tribunal. In the circumstances, no costs. _____________________ V.SURI APPA RAO, J. 25th March, 2011. Ak HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.SURI APPA RAO Writ Petition No.15475 of 2000 (P.D. order) 25th March, 2011. [1] 2009 (5) ALD 655