THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO W.P.NO.12388 OF 1998 ORDER: This writ petition has been preferred by the Depot Manager, Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corpotation (‘the Corporation’, for short), Ponnur Depot, Guntur, challenging the correctness and validity of the Award passed by the Labour Court, Guntur, in I.D.No.232 of 1994, dated 28-11-1997, wherein the 1st respondent workmen/Conductor was ordered to be reinstated back to duty with continuity of service and he was also awarded payment of 50% of the back wages. The 1st respondent workman joined the service the Corporation as a Conductor in the year 1976. He performed his duties by operating an Express Bus Service on 08-08-1993 and at the end of the duty he has handed over his tickets tray as well as the filled in statistical return and cash box in the Office of the Bus Depot and thus, after getting relieved he went back home. He was required to report back to duty on 11-08- 1993, but however, without leaving any intimation with the 1st respondent workman, his tickets tray was opened by the Assistant Manager under instructions of the Depot Manager in the presence of the Deputy Superintendent (Traffic), Depot Clerk and Security Personnel. They have detected certain irregularities said to have been committed by the 1st respondent workman. On that basis, a charge sheet was drawn on 25-09-1993 enumerating the following five charges: CHARGE No.1: “For having kept in your Tray Box No.031 the punched tickets bearing Nos.214/374844 & 845 each 2 of Rs.5/- DN. Which were sold and accounted for at ex-stage No.12 in the S.R.No.8712013, dt.6-8-93 in your return trip from Sindhanoor which constitutes misconduct under Reg.28 (xxxi) of the APSRTC Employees (Conduct) Regulations, 1963.” CHARGE No.2: “For having kept in your Tray Box No.031 the used and punched tickets bearing Nos.214/374844 and 374845 of Rs.5/- each.2., 004/429070 and 429071 of Rs.100/- DN. Each.2 and 002/657408, 657409 and 657410 of Rs.70/- Dn. Each 3 and maintained S.R.No.8712013, dt.6-8-93 in an irregular manner which constitutes misconduct under Reg.28 (xxv) (xxxi) of the APSRTC Employees (Conduct) Regulations, 1963.” CHARGE No.3: “For having closed S.R.No.8712013, dt.6-8-93 with ticket Nos. 811, 408 and 069 instead of 815, 411 and 072 against Rs.20/-, Rs.70/- and Rs.100/- dens. in your return trip from Sindhanoor which constitutes misconduct under Reg.28 (xxv) of the APSRTC Employees (Conduct) Regulations, 1963.” CHARGE No.4: “For having remitted Rs.74/- excess in your bus cash as per the S.R. No.8712013 and way Bill No.93073 closed by you on 8-8-93 after spell of your duty on the route Sindhanoor – Bapatla even though remitted short of Rs.590/- in the bus cash as per the sale of tickets found in the Hand Tray which constitutes misconduct under Reg.28 (x) of the APSRTC Employees (Conduct) Regulations, 1963.” CHARGE No.5: “For having left the headquarters after the spell of your duty on 8-8-93 which constitutes misconduct under Reg.5 of the APSRTC Employees (Conduct) Regulations, 1963.” The 1st respondent workman stoutly disputed the veracity of the factual statements, which formed basis for these charges. On the ground that the explanation offered by him was not satisfactory, a Domestic Enquiry was ordered in the matter and the Enquiry Officer submitted his Report holding the 1st respondent workman guilty of all the five charges. Based upon this Enquiry Report an Order was passed on 09-02-1994 imposing the punishment of removal from service. The 1st respondent preferred an Appeal to the Divisional Manager at Guntur, which was rejected on 05-06-1994. In terms of Section 2A(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, the 1st respondent raised a dispute before the Labour Court, putting in issue the punishment of removal imposed on him. The Labour Court on appreciation of the entire matter had come to the conclusion that the 1st respondent workman has not been dealt with fairly in the matter of domestic enquiry and hence, it cannot be held completely responsible for the punched and used tickets said to have been found in his tray box, particularly, when the same was opened in his absence. It was also further noticed by the Labour Court that there was no evidence on record to indicate that the 1st respondent workman has sold these tickets, which have been punched and hence, it had considered imposition of the punishment of removal from service as disproportionate and harsh punishment. It has, therefore, directed reinstatement of the 1st respondent workman with benefit of continuity of service. It was, however, considered appropriate by the Labour Court to deny payment of 50% of the backwages for the interregnum period. It is this Award passed by the Labour Court, which is called in question in this writ petition by the Management of the Corporation. Heard Sri K. Srinivasa Murthy, learned Standing Counsel for the Corporation and Sri G. Ravi Mohan, learned counsel for the 1st respondent workman. It is very strenuously contended by Sri K. Sreenivasa Murthy that the Labour Court has grossly exceeded its jurisdictional limits in ordering reinstatement into service by the 1st respondent workman and also ordering for payment of 50% of the backwages. He contends that the only defence the workman could offer was some inter se rivalry between the trade unions, which defense could not be established by the respondent workman and, therefore, no exception ought have been drawn to the findings recorded by the Enquiry Officer. It was also contended by the learned Standing Counsel that when the Labour Court found that there was enough material on record to indicate that there are punched tickets available in the tray, the Labour Court ought not have interfered with the punishment imposed. It was also contended that there are no reasons assigned by the Labour Court for arriving at the conclusion that the punishment imposed is excessive or harsh. Similarly, as to how denial of 50% back wages would meet the ends of justice would not also been adequately spelt out by the Labour Court hence, he submits that the Award passed by the Labour Court deserves interference by this Court. Per contra, Sri G. Ravi Mohan, learned counsel for the respondent-workman contends that when once a Conductor completes his assigned duty and performs the trip and deposits the cash earned for the day together with the filled in statistical return, wherein all the particulars of the tickets sold by him while performing the duties have been recorded, with the depot staff concerned, there was no occasion for his tray box to be opened behind his back. It is not as if that the tray box is liable to be opened by anyone else for the Depot staff to apprehend disappearance of any suspected material therefrom before the 1st respondent workman would report to duty on 11-08-1993. The very fact that the tray box has been opened behind his back after he has completed the trip and deposited the day’s cash earned together with the statistical return, would indicate some intended mischief designed to land the 1st respondent workman in trouble. Therefore, the material said to have been gathered behind the back of the 1st respondent workman is not liable to be taken into account and consideration, for, it lacks credibility. The main thrust of the imputations is that there are tickets of the denomination of Rs.5-00, Rs.70-00 and Rs.100-00, punched and kept in the tray. There are also some tickets, which are already used found in his tray. Therefore, it is alleged that the 1st respondent workman has not either accounted for the corresponding value of these tickets or he is intending to recycle these very tickets in the next trip when he undertakes the duty. I have perused the Enquiry Report. It was found by the Enquiry Officer that the serial number of the tickets, which are found lying in his tray box and which are punched are already sold ones. Every Conductor at the time when he starts performing his days duty, is entrusted with a statistical return, wherein he has to enter the numbers of the tickets, which have been lying inhis ticket tray. The Conductor is also required to make entries relating to the tickets sold of each denomination en route. Further, the Conductor is also liable to note as to the stage at which a particular ticket bearing a particular number was sold. Each ticket was required to be punched at two places by the Conductor. The first punch mark will indicate the starting point of the journey of the passenger, while the second punch mark on the ticket will disclose the end point of the journey of such a passenger. Nowhere the witness have spoken that the so-called punched tickets, which were allegedly retrieved from the tray box of the 1st respondent workman, were either punched twice or their numbers were already reflected in the statistical return. For instance, if a bundle of tickets of Rs.100/- denomination containing fifty tickets were issued to the Conductor at the starting point of his duty hours, the Conductor was required to note the ticket number of the first ticket in the bundle in his statistical return. All through his duty hours if he has sold, let us say, 25 tickets, at the end of the journey, the statistical return must contain the ticket number 25 entered therein. While depositing the cash with the depot, he has to necessarily deposit the cash earned by selling the entire 25 tickets of Rs.100/- denomination. Hence, entries in the statistical return have large amounts of significance attached thereto. Firstly, every Conductor will be held accountable for depositing the equivalent cash component earned by selling these tickets to the passengers en route. Secondly, by entering the ticket numbers in the statistical return at every state, when the tickets are sold, it would help in preventing recycling of tickets by the Conductors. Further, it would also help the inspecting officials to verify as to whether appropriate fare is collected from the passengers or not. Therefore, the Enquiry Officer ought to have analysed the entire material with reference to the entries contained in the statistical return. As was noticed supra, if the Conductor had entered in his statistical return only 25 ticket numbers of Rs.100/- denomination, he is answerable to retain in his tray box the balance 25 tickets intact. If any one or two of these tickets are found punched and lying in the tray box, there could be two possibilities to explain that; 1) if erroneously more number of tickets are punched than what is really required, the unsold tickets can be retained in the tray, but an entry has got to be necessarily reflected in that respect in the statistical return and 2) if the tray box is retrieved in the absence of the Conductor concerned, anyone else can also punch a ticket using a punching machine, which is very freely available at the Corporation bus depots. Therefore, mere presence of punched tickets alone would not indicate any mala fide intention on the part of a Conductor. A proper analysis of the statistical return filed by the Conductor would have unraveled any mischievous intention either perpetuated or intended. In the absence of any such attempt on the part of the Enquiry Officer and the Disciplinary authority, the findings recorded that the 1st respondent workman is guilty of the charges can be considered as an unsustainable finding of fact, which may or may not have been attempted by a Conductor, for which act, he is sought to be penalized. When a serious and grave punishment, such as removal from service, is to be inflicted, the disciplinary authority must reasonably be satisfied with reference to the availability of the material on record that the employee concerned can be held guilty of the misdemeanor alleged against him. When it is equally difficult to hold an employee guilty of such misdemeanor, the benefit of doubt is bound to be extended in favour of such an employee, particularly, when the incriminating material had been collected behind his back. Therefore, to my mind, the Labour Court has exercised the discretionary power available with it in terms of Section 11A of the Industrial Disputes Act, properly in this case. It also balanced the interests of the writ petitioner Corporation by denying to the 1st respondent workman back wages to the extent of 50%. It is true that exercise of discretion is to be carried out on sound lines and it cannot be whimsical or farcical. The fact that the Labour Court ought to have assigned comprehensive reasons for exercise of such a discretion need not always result in the matter to be remitted back to the Labour Court for that purpose, particularly, when the industrial dispute is a fairly old one. While it is certainly desirable on the part of the Industrial Tribunal / Labour Court to assign reasons for its exercise of discretion, but at the same time, if such reasons are not difficult to be adduced or inferred from the record, perhaps, while exercising the certiorari jurisdiction under Article 226, the High Court need not always remit the matter back for fresh consideration by the Labour Court. In my opinion, the fact situation prevailing in the instant case is one such, where one cannot with a sense of certainity, say that the 1st respondent workman is the one who has punched the tickets and kept them in his tray. When a possibility of this nature can also be achieved by anyone, when the tray has been forcibly opened up in his absence after he has handed over the day’s cash and the statistical return to the depot staff and completed his duty and left the depot premises, perhaps, the Labour Court has reached the correct conclusion. For the aforementioned reasons, I do not accede to the request of the writ petitioner that the matter deserves to be remanded back. I do not see any infirmity in the concludion reached by the Labour Court and hence, I dismiss the writ petition, but however, without costs. --------------------------------- Nooty Ramamohana Rao, J mrk 11th November 2009