IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY SEVENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO WRIT PETITION No : 34436 of 1998 Between: The Depot Manager, A.P.S.R.T.C., Bus Depot, Narayankhed. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 M.Anjaiah, S/o. Siddiah, Post. Nizamabad Via Sadasivapet, Dist.Medak - 502291. 2 The Presiding Officer, Labour Court-II, A.P., Hyderabad. .....RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to call for the records relating to the award in I.D.No. 53 of 94 dated 4.3.97 on the file of the Labour Court-II, Hyderabad and quash the same as arbitrary, illegal by way of issue of Writ of Certiorari or any other appropriate Writ or order or orders as the Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. Counsel for the Petitioner : Smt. B.G. Uma Devi Counsel for Respondent No.2 : Government Pleader for Labour The Court made the following O R D E R : This is a writ petition instituted by the Depot Manger of the Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation, Narayankhed (for short, ‘the Corporation’) calling in question the correctness and validity of the award dated 04.03.1997 passed by the Labour Court in I.D. No. 53 of 1994 raised by respondent No.1-workman. On 01.09.1993, while respondent No.1 was conducting a bus belonging to the Corporation on the route Narayankhed to Aurad, it was subjected to a check in between stages No.9 and 10. The checking officials have found the irregularities namely; 1) allowing the bus to start its onward journey without completely issuing the tickets; 2) having collected the requisite fare of Rs.2.50 from four passengers at stage No.8, but had failed to issue tickets to them by the time of the check; and 3) he has closed the statistical return tray for all denominations up to stage No.9 without completing the job of issuing tickets to the passengers in the bus. Respondent No.1 – Conductor, in his spot explanation, has pointed out that some of the passengers in the bus for whom tickets were already issued, insisted and forced him to start the onward journey of the bus as they have to catch up with their college schedule. As a result, he permitted the onward journey of the bus though he has not yet completed the process of issuing tickets. Obviously, the violations committed by the respondent-workman are more in the nature of technical violations. The rule framed by the Corporation insisting upon the Conductors to start the onward journey only after issuing all the tickets is obviously to ensure that the revenue interests of the Corporation are preserved and protected. It is intended to prevent the Conductors from getting away from the irregularities of the nature committed in the instant case, but nonetheless, the fact remains that the passengers sometimes become restive as the process of completely issuing the tickets may consume precious time and, consequently, if they were to catch up with important schedules such as to attend to examinations, offices, colleges, etcetera, they would be insisting upon the Conductors to start the onward journey so that the Conductor will be forced to carry on the collection of the fare from the passengers en route. The conduct of respondent No.1 - workman has got to be looked at in this context. The writ petitioner does not appear to have taken note of the explanation offered by respondent No.1 - workman that under pressure from several passengers on board, he had started the onward journey, without completing the task of issuing tickets to all the passengers. If respondent No.1 - workman is still in the process of issuing tickets, it will be difficult to assume any mala fides on his part. If he has not completed the process of issuing tickets, it can reasonably be assumed that he has no malice in allowing the onward journey to start off as some of the passengers could possibly be pressing hard for catching up with the college schedule. The writ petitioner has not appreciated this aspect of the matter when he passed the order of removal against respondent No.1 - workman on 20.12.1993. The Labour Court obviously taking these factors into account and the proportionality of punishment that should visit the employee concern for the quantum of proven misconduct, has ordered the reinstatement of respondent No.1 with all attendant benefits while denying him completely the back wages. The Labour Court appears to have balanced the interest of both sides properly in this regard. If the conduct of respondent No.1 - workman can reasonably be inferred to be bona fide, it is only appropriate that he ought not to have been removed from service totally instead of imposing any other penalty, which is spelt out under the Discipline, Control and Appeal Rules framed by the Corporation itself. The extreme punishment of removal does not appear to be a just and reasonable punishment in such circumstances. For these reasons, I do not find it justifiable to interfere with the award passed by the Labour Court as it will be difficult to characterize it as perverse or wholly unjust. Therefore, the writ petition is dismissed, but however, without costs. (NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO,J) 27th February 2008 ksld ..... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1.2CCs to 2.2CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WP{MUK}