THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO.16334 OF 2000 DATED 4th OCTOBER, 2010 BETWEEN: Ch.V.R.Sanyasi Rao … Petitioner A n d Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Visakhapatnam, and others. …Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO.16334 OF 2000 O R D E R By Award dated 08.06.1999 in I.D.No.78 of 1997, the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Visakhapatnam, reduced the punishment of removal from service imposed upon the petitioner to that of withholding of two increments without cumulative effect. Not satisfied with the relief granted, the petitioner filed the present case. The petitioner, a Conductor in the service of the Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation (APSRTC), was removed from service on 18.09.1996 in connection with certain irregularities detected during the check made while he was conducting the service between Anakapalli and Parlakimudi on 28.03.1996. After conducting an enquiry as per procedure the APSRTC found him guilty of both the charges levelled against him and accordingly removed him from service. His appeal against the said punishment met with failure. He thereupon invoked the powers of the Labour Court under Section 2- A(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for brevity, ‘the Act of 1947’). The Labour Court upon consideration of the material on record came to the conclusion that the petitioner was guilty of dereliction of duty though he did not stand to gain monetarily from the irregularities established against him. In that view of the matter, the Labour Court exercised jurisdiction under Section 11-A of the Act of 1947 and held that the capital punishment of removal from service was not warranted. Considering the gravity of the offence, the Labour Court substituted the punishment by reducing it to cutting of two increments without cumulative effect. The Labour Court further held that the petitioner would not be entitled to back wages but all other service benefits would accrue to him. Sri G.Tuhinkumar, learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that the Labour Court erred in not noticing that the petitioner was denied due opportunity during the course of the enquiry. However, the Labour Court found on the preliminary point that the domestic enquiry was properly held. Relevant to note, the petitioner did not choose to include a challenge to the order of the Labour Court on the preliminary point in this regard. There is therefore no substance in the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that there were any procedural lapses in the conduct of the enquiry. Given the facts of the case, the exercise undertaken by the Labour Court under Section 11-A of the Act of 1947 does not warrant interference by this Court. There are no merits in the writ petition. The Writ Petition is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. -------------------------- SANJAY KUMAR,J 4th OCTOBER, 2010 PGS THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO.16334 OF 2000 4TH OCTOBER, 2010