*THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION NOS : 13388 & 14712 OF 2008 % 14.07.2008 WRIT PETITION NO.14712 OF 2008 Between: # A.P.S.R.T.C., Rep. By its Depot Manager, Tadipatri Depot, Anantapur District. …Petitioner And $ Sri Kd. Naerayanaswamy and another. …Respondents ! COUNSEL FOR PETITIONER: Sri W.V.S. Rajeswari ^ COUNSEL FOR RESPONDENTS: Sri Narasimha Goud WRIT PETITION NO :13388 OF 2008 # K.Narayana Swamy …Petitioners And $ A.P.S.R.T.C., Rep. By its Depot Manager, Tadipatri Depot, Anantapur District and another …Respondents ! COUNSEL FOR PETITIONER: Sri Narasimha Goud ^ COUNSEL FOR RESPONDENTS: Smt W.V.S.Rajeswari < Gist: > Head Note: ? CITATIONS: THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION Nos : 13388 & 14712 of 2008 COMMON ORDER: The award, dated 10.10.2007, passed by the Labour Court, Anantapur in I.D.No.109 of 2005 is challenged in these writ petitions. Through the said award, the Labour Court had set aside the order of removal of an employee viz., K. Narayana, Conductor, from the service of the A.P.S.R.T.C and directed his reinstatement, but without continuity of service, attendant benefits and back wages. While the employee filed W.P.No.13388 of 2008, assailing the award, insofar as it denied the continuity of service, attendant benefits and back wages, the Corporation filed W.P.No.14712 of 2008, feeling aggrieved by the direction as to reinstatement of the employee. The employee was working as a Conductor in Tadipatri Depot of the Corporation. A charge sheet, dated 03.01.2004, was issued to him, alleging that he issued used tickets to two passengers, from whom, he is said to have collected fare of Rs.12/- each. The employee submitted his explanation denying the charge. Domestic enquiry was conducted and the charge was held proved. After issuing the show cause notice, the Depot Manager of the Corporation removed the employee from service, through proceedings, dated 07.06.2004. The remedies of appeal and review availed by the employee were not successful. Therefore, he approached the Labour Court under Section 2-A (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short ‘the Act’). The Labour Court recorded a finding to the effect that the charge framed against the employee was not proved. The proceedings, dated 07.06.2004, were set aside and the employee was directed to be reinstated into service. The reliefs of continuity of service, attendant benefits and back wages were denied to the employee. Smt. W.V.S.Rajeswari, learned Standing Counsel for the Corporation submits that there is clinching evidence to show that the employee had issued used tickets and the Labour Court had arrived at the conclusion on the basis of guesswork. She contends that the employee was not at all cooperative through out the proceedings and no valid explanation was forthcoming as to the lapses on his part. She contends that there is no basis for the Labour Court in directing reinstatement of the employee. Sri V.Narasimha Goud, learned counsel for the employee, on the other hand, submits that after undertaking extensive discussion, the Labour Court had arrived at a conclusion that the charge framed against the employee was not proved and despite the same, it denied the continuity of service, attendant benefits and back wages. He further submits that the employee is denied substantial relief for no fault of his. The only charge leveled against the employee was that having collected Rs.24/- from two passengers, who boarded the bus at Tornagal, intending to travel up to Hospet, the employee issued two tickets of separate denominations of Rs.10/- and Rs.2/- each, which were already punched. The employee, in turn, pleaded that at Hospet, he went to a shop to procure change for refunding it to the passengers and in the meanwhile, the checking officials entered the bus together with two passengers. It is stated that in his absence, a statement in Hindi was extracted from a passenger and though another statement in Telugu was extracted from another passenger, it was not made part of record. The disciplinary proceedings ended in an order of removal against the employee. The Labour Court has undertaken extensive discussion with reference to the evidence before it, i.e., Exs.M.1 to M.22 and ultimately, concluded that there is no acceptable evidence to warrant removal of the employee from service. In a way, the only charge framed against the employee was held not proved. The Learned Standing Counsel for the Corporation is not able to point out any serious defect in the finding recorded by the Labour Court. At any rate, this Court cannot act as an appellate authority on such questions of fact. This is not a case, where the Labour Court had to stretch its discretion, in the matter of granting relief, even after holding that the misconduct of the employee was proved. Once the order of removal was set aside, holding that the charge was not proved, in the normal course, the employee ought to have been restored to his original position, in all respects. The Labour Court, however, granted the relief of mere reinstatement and denied the reliefs of continuity of service, attendant benefits and back wages. The employee joined the service of the Corporation in 1979. The fruits of the past service cannot be denied in the facts and circumstances of the case. The slight lack of clarity as to the finding recorded by the Labour Court can, at the most, lead to denial of attendant benefits and back wages to the employee. For the foregoing reasons, W.P.No.14712 of 2008 is dismissed and W.P.No.13388 of 2008 is partly allowed, directing that in addition to the reinstatement, the employee would be entitled to the benefit of continuity of service, but not for the attendant benefits and back wages. There shall be no order as to costs. _________ 14.07.2008 Note: L.R.Copy to be marked. (B/o) JSU THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION Nos : 13388 & 14712 of 2008 Date: 14.07.2008 JSU