HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT PETITION No.1034 of 2006 ORDER: The petitioner, a Conductor in the Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation (APSRTC), was visited with the reduced punishment of deferment of three annual increments with cumulative effect by virtue of the award dated 11.10.2004 passed by the Labour Court-II, Hyderabad in I.D.No.46 of 2003. The Labour Court set aside the removal of the petitioner from service and while reducing the punishment as aforestated, directed his reinstatement with continuity of service including notional increments but denied him back wages. Aggrieved by the denial of back wages and the reduced punishment imposed upon him, the petitioner is before this Court. The petitioner entered the service of the APSRTC as a Conductor on 01.07.1985. He was subjected to disciplinary proceedings in connection with certain cash and ticket irregularities detected during the check made while he was conducting the bus service on the route Nizamabad to Zaheerabad on 09.02.2002. The charge levelled against the petitioner was serious in nature as he was alleged to have collected the requisite fare from two passengers but issued them lesser denomination tickets. After following the due procedure, the APSRTC removed the petitioner from service under proceedings dated 18.10.2002. His appeal having been rejected, the petitioner filed the subject I.D. before the Labour Court. The Labour Court, upon examination of the material on record, concurred with the finding of the enquiry officer that the petitioner had omitted to issue tickets of Rs.60/- to a batch of two passengers and issued them lower denomination tickets, whereby he pocketed the sum of Rs.60/- and would have misappropriated the same but for the check. The Labour Court however exercised jurisdiction under Section 11-A of the Indusstrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for brevity ‘the Act of 1947’) and reduced the punishment to that of deferment of three annual increments with cumulative effect. The petitioner was accordingly directed to be reinstated into service with continuity of service and notional increments but without back wages. The facts demonstrate that the charge levelled against the petitioner held duly proved by the enquiry officer was also confirmed by the Labour Court. It is pertinent to note that the APSRTC did not choose to challenge the award to the extent of the reliefs granted. In the light of the seriousness of the charge levelled and proved against the petitioner, the reduced punishment imposed upon him is rather light to say the least. Normally, in cases involving misappropriation the strictest punishment would not only be justified but would be necessary. However, as the Labour Court exercised jurisdiction under Section 11-A of the Act of 1947 being of the opinion that the punishment of removal from service was disproportionate to the gravity of the misconduct, this Court is not inclined to interfere at this stage; all the more so, as there is no challenge by the APSRTC. In any event, the petitioner can have no grievance with regard to the reduced punishment imposed upon him or the denial of back wages. The award under challenge therefore does not warrant any interference, be it on facts or in law. The Writ Petition is devoid of merit and is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. SANJAY KUMAR, J. Date:29.11.2010 usd