IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE TWENTY SECOND DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR WRIT PETITION NO : 32826 of 1998 Between: The Depot Manager ,A.P.S.R.T.C., Hyderabad depot No.II Dilsukhanagar, Hyderabad. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 Sri B.Srihari, s/o. B.Ramaiah, H.No.8-3-220/974-B, Rahmathnagar, Yousufguda, Hyderabad. 2 The Labour court-I, Rep.by it's Presiding Office, Hyderabad, A.P. .....RESPONDENT(S) 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 to issue any apropriate writ, order or direction particularly in the nature of writ or certiorari clling for the records pertaining to the award of the labour Court.I Hyderabad in I.D.No.92/97 dt.26.6.1998 and published on 15.9.1998 and quash the same as being illegal,arbitrary and unjust and pass such other orders as may be deemed fit. Counsel for the Petitioner:MRS.A.VYJAYANTHI Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR LABOUR The Court made the following : Form-NIC-OGS/WP{VVS} HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR W.P.No.32826 of 1998 O R D E R: This writ petition is ﬁled by the A.P. State Road Transport Corporation (for short ‘Corporation) questioning the legality of the award, passed in I.D.No.92 of 1997, dated 26-06-1998, by the Labour Court-I, Hyderabad. 2. The learned standing counsel for the petitioner-Corporation contends that the finding of the Labour Court over the serious charges is unjustified. The domestic enquiry conducted was perfectly legal and the conduct of R-1, who is the delinquent, employee in the past, also is censured of other punishments. The learned standing counsel for the petitioner, therefore, contends that on account of misplaced sympathy, the Labour Court has erred in interfering with the findings of the enquiry officer and the disciplinary authority and held that the charges were not proved when there is suﬃcient material to establish all the three charges. 3. The learned counsel for R-1 contends that the ﬁndings of the enquiry oﬃcer were rightly set aside by the Labour Court inasmuch as the four passengers, in respect of whom, the charges are framed, have boarded the bus, when the check took place and prior to that, the Service Register was rightly closed by the Conductor. The learned counsel supports the ﬁnding of the Labour Court as well as the relief granted. The learned counsel also contends that in pursuance of the award impugned, the 1st respondent has been reinstated and has also withdrawn half of the back-wages that were deposited by the petitioner-Corporation in pursuance of an interim order dated 26- 11-1998 and that the 1st respondent has been working continuously from 05-10-1998. So far as the back-wages are concerned, the period involved is only between 28-06-1997 i.e. the date of impugned award and 05-10-1998 i.e. the date of reinstatement, which is too short. 4. I have been taken through the records of the case by both the learned counsel. 5. It is true that the ﬁnding of the Labour Court that in matters of this nature, there shall be human touch, and human approach is necessary on the part of checking oﬃcials or disciplinary authorities, etc. is rather too widely stated. However, the ﬁrst two charges clearly appeared to be unsustainable as the Service Register was closed at stage ‘19’ and the check was conducted at stage ‘20’ where the four passengers just entered the bus as per the check report. So far as third charge is concerned, it also appears to be not sustainable, and the Labour Court observed that allowing the four passengers at the entry point hardly covers a distance of 1½ kilometers. In this view of the matter, the finding of the Labour Court that the charges were not proved deserves to be sustained for other reasons as well. Consequently, the relief granted by the Labour Court directing reinstatement and back-wages does not deserve to be interfered with, especially, in view of the fact that 1st respondent was already reinstated and out of the back-wages awarded for a total period of one year and four months, half of the backwages have already been paid and received by the workman. 6. Under these circumstances, the writ petition is dismissed. No costs. ________________ 22-08-2008 kvr