THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI and THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT APPEAL NO : 1875 of 2005 Date: 6.11.2009 Between: C. Dharma Rao .... APPELLANT AND The Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Hyderabad and others. .. Respondents. THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI and THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT APPEAL No.1875 of 2005 Oral Judgment: (Per Hon’ble Smt. Justice T. Meena Kumari) This writ appeal is directed against the order of the learned single Judge made in Writ Petition No. 31170 of 1998, dated 11.10.2004. The appellant filed the aforementioned writ petition before the learned single Judge assailing the Award of the Labour Court-I, Hyderabad in I.D. No. 79 of 1995, dated 30.8.1996 in so far as it denied continuity of service, back wages and attendant benefits. It is the case of the appellant that he was appointed as a Conductor in the 2nd respondent-Corporation. On 20.10.1993, when he was conducting the bus on the route No. 63-K(Urban Service), a check was exercised by the officials of the respondent Corporation at Stage No.1 and they found certain cash and ticket irregularities alleged to have been committed by the appellant. The authorities, therefore, issued a charge sheet framing the charges and after conducting a detailed enquiry into the matter, passed an order of removal against the appellant. Challenging the same, the appellant preferred an appeal, which also ended in dismissal. The appellant, thereafter, filed a review petition before the higher authorities and the same was also dismissed through order dated 15.2.1995. Thereafter, the appellant raised a dispute under Section 2-A(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act before the Labour Court-I, Hyderabad,. The Labour Court having considered the explanation offered by the appellant, felt that the punishment imposed is disproportionate to the mis-conduct alleged against him and accordingly set aside the order of removal and directed to reinstate the appellant afresh for all purposes, except for pensionary benefits, but without continuity of service, back wages and other attendant benefits. Challenging the said order, the appellant filed the aforementioned writ petition before the learned single Judge. The learned single Judge, taking into account the fact that the charge levelled against the appellant is trivial in nature, held that the punishment imposed against the appellant would result in injustice and accordingly modified the punishment to that of reinstatement with continuity of service, but did not award any back wages or attendant benefits, including increments. Feeling aggrieved, the appellant filed the present appeal. Learned counsel for the appellant would contend that as it is not a case of mis-conduct or misappropriation, the learned single judge ought not to have denied him the back wages and attendant benefits. He, therefore, prayed that the impugned order be set aside and the appeal be allowed. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned order. Admittedly, the learned single judge while taking into account the fact that the charge levelled against the appellant was with regard to non- collection of fare and non-issuance of tickets to passengers who were traveling from ex-stages 2/1 to 1 and since the check was exercised at 2/1, held that there was no intention on the part of the appellant to defraud the revenue of the Corporation. That apart, the charge levelled against the appellant is so trivial in nature that even as per the operational manual of the corporation, the charge may not amount to mis-conduct, but in view of the fact that there is some laxity on the part of the appellant in conducting the bus, the learned single judge was justified in modifying the Award of the Labour Court. Hence, we do not find any illegality or irregularity in the order under appeal. The appeal fails and it is accordingly dismissed. No costs. ___________________ T.MEENA KUMARI,J Date: 6th November, 2009 _________________ SANJAY KUMAR,J pnb