HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. RAMULU WRIT PETITION NO.13354 OF 2005 ORDER: This writ petition is directed against an award dated 30.4.2003 made in I.D.No.80 of 2001 by the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Warangal, whereunder the application filed by the petitioner- workman under section 2(A)(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, seeking to set aside the order of removal passed by the respondent and to direct the respondent to reinstate him into service as conductor with all benefits, was dismissed in toto. It appears that the petitioner-workman was appointed as conductor in the year 1985 and was attached to APSRTC depot, Parkal, Warangal District. While that being so, on 20.5.1998 when he was conducting bus No.4734 on route Parkal-Koppula at stage No.5, a check was exercised and certain cash and ticket irregularities were found and as such, a charge sheet was issued enumerating the following charges: 1. Failed to observe the rule ‘Issue and Start’ 2. Failed to issue tickets to 5 individual passengers even after collecting requisite fare; 3. Failed to close tray numbers of all denominations in S.R. against stage No.5. Though the petitioner submitted his explanation, as the same was not convincing, the respondent-management ordered for a detailed enquiry and the enquiry officer submitted a report holding that the petitioner is guilty of the charges and after completing the formalities, the respondent-management removed the petitioner from service by order dated 10.10.1998. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner filed an appeal. But the same was dismissed on 17.6.1999 and further the review filed by the petitioner was also dismissed on 5.7.2000. Having no other option, the petitioner raised a dispute under Section 2-A(2) of the I.D. Act before the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Warangal, which is numbered as I.D.No.80 of 2001. Before the Labour Court, it was the case of the petitioner- workman that he put in 13 years of long and clean service and the charges framed against him pursuant to the check exercised on 20.5.1998 were as vague as they could be and the enquiry was not properly conducted and absolutely, there was no evidence to prove the misconduct as alleged and even assuming that there was some misconduct on the part of the petitioner, imposition of punishment of removal was shockingly disproportionate to that of the alleged misconduct. The respondent-management filed a counter denying the allegations made by the petitioner and stating that past service of the petitioner was not good and he was imposed with punishment of deferment of annual increments for five times and that the charges in the present case are grave in nature and therefore, the management had no option except to impose punishment of removal from service. Before the Labour Court, no oral or documentary evidence was let in on behalf of the petitioner-workman. On behalf of the respondent- management, no oral evidence was let in but documents Exs.M1 to M17 were marked. After a detailed consideration of the entire evidence on record, the Labour Court came to the conclusion that it is the responsibility of the bus conductors to collect the correct fare from the passengers and deposit the same with the corporation and they act in a fiduciary capacity and it would be a case of gross misconduct if knowingly, they do not collect any fare or the correct amount of fare, and that it is not only the amount involved, but the mental set up, the type of duty performed and similar relevant circumstances which go into the decision making process while considering whether the punishment is proportionate or disproportionate. As such, the Labour Court held that since the charges in the present case are grave in nature if any lesser punishment than removal from service is imposed by exercising powers under Section 11 A of the I.D. Act, it would be nothing but improper exercise of powers conferred on the Tribunal under Section 11A of the Act. Thus, the labour Court dismissed the application. Aggrieved thereby, the present writ petition is filed. The learned Counsel for the petitioner strenuously contended that neither enquiry was properly conducted nor there is any evidence to establish the alleged misconduct against the petitioner and even assuming that there is misconduct on the part of the petitioner, the same was trivial in nature. It is further contended that the petitioner had put in more than 13 years of clean service prior to his removal and that was not taken into consideration by the disciplinary authority, appellate authority or review authority and the labour Court erred in exercising powers conferred under Section 11 A of the Act, in not granting any relief by extending any benefit of other alternative punishment. Learned Counsel appearing for the respondent-management contended that the charges are grave in nature and though the conduct of the petitioner was fair and good for 13 years, it does not mean that the punishment imposed would not have been proportionate to that of the misconduct and that the labour Court has rightly refused to interfere with the order of removal passed by the respondent-management on 10.10.1998 as confirmed by the appellate and review authority and that no grounds are made out calling for interference of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. I have given my earnest consideration to the respective submissions made by the learned Counsel on either side and perused the impugned order and the other material made available on record. It is an admitted fact that the petitioner had put in fair and good service as a conductor and except punishment of deferment of annual grade increments now and then, there were no allegations against him prior to his removal. In the present case, the explanation of the petitioner was that he was doing double duty from 19.5.1998 to 20.5.1998 and therefore, he was hasty and not able to concentrate. Of course, such an explanation was rightly rejected by the disciplinary authority, the appellate authority and the labour Court. But the fact remains that since the past service of the petitioner was fair and good, the punishment of removal from service for the first time is nothing but shockingly disproportionate to that of the alleged misconduct. The labour Court ought to have taken a lenient view in this matter. In view of the fact that since the petitioner had put in fair and good service of 13 years, he could have been atleast granted reinstatement with continuity of service but without any backwages and treating the interregnum period viz., from the date of removal till date of reinstatement only for the purpose of retrial benefits. Instead of doing that, the labour Court, having failed to exercise discretionary powers vested in it under Section 11 A of the I.D. Act, rejected the application of the petitioner, which in my considered opinion, is erroneous. Under these circumstances, I am of the opinion that the award passed by the labour Court needs to be modified as under: (1) The respondent-management is directed to reinstate the petitioner into service with continuity of service, but without backwages and other attendant benefits. (2) Further, the respondent-management shall not count the interregnum period viz., from the date of removal till the date of reinstatement, for the purpose of seniority etc., but shall count the same for the purpose of retirement benefits only. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of. No order as to costs. _________________ Justice C.V. Ramulu Dated: 11.2.2011 Nn. HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. RAMULU WRIT PETITION NO.13354 OF 2005 11.2.2011