THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU WRIT PETITION No.14692 of 2005 Dated: 01.02.2011 Between: T.V.Rao. .. Petitioner. And The Chairman & Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Visakhapatnam, and another. .. Respondent. ORDER: This writ petition is directed against the award dated 28.06.2004 passed by the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Visakhapatnam, in I.D.No.73 of 2002. Petitioner is the workman and respondent No.2 is the management. It appears, the petitioner, who was working as conductor in the A.P. State Road Transport Corporation (for short ‘the Corporation’) at S.Kota Depot, was found to have committed certain cash and ticket irregularities, while conducting the bus bearing No. AP 10 Z 2295 on the route Arakuvalley to Araku on 15.09.2000 at 9.30 a.m. at Araku. Thereupon, a charge sheet was issued to the petitioner enumerating the following charges: “1. For having issued E.2 tickets bearing Nos.112/042623 E.1 and no.112/042628, E.1 of Rs.3/- den., which were already sold and accounted for by you in the SR concerned during the trip of the service bus from Arakuvalley to Araku (i.e.,) during the trip previous to the trip under check in question, to a batch of two passengers who boarded your service bus at Arakuvalley during the trip under check in question, being bound for Araku ex-stages 2 to 1, duly after collecting the requisite fare amount of Rs.6/- from them at their boarding point itself for their travel upto Araku, while you are conducting the service bus bearing No.AP 10 Z 2295 on route Arakuvalley to Araku on 15.9.2000, which act of yourself in that regard constitutes misconduct on your part under Reg.28(xxiii) of APSRTC Employees’ (conduct) Regulations, 1963. 2. For having issued, along with requisite passenger tickets bearing Nos.112/042652 to 653, E.2 of Rs.3/- demn., a luggage ticket bearing no.786/094878, E.1, of Rs.0.50ps. demn., which i.e., the luggage ticket, was already sold and accounted for by you in the SR concerned during the previous trip of the service bus from Arakuvalley to Araku, (i.e.) during the trip previous to the trip under check in question, to another batch of two passengers, who boarded your service bus bearing No.AP10Z 2295 along with E.1 unit of chargeable luggage viz., vegetables, at Arakuvalley, during the trip under check in question, being bound for Araku, Ex- stages 2-1, duly after collecting the requisite fare amount of Rs.6.50 ps., from them at their boarding point itself for their travel upto Araku, while you were conducting the service bus bearing no.AP10Z 2295 on route Arakuvalley to Araku on 15.9.2000, which act of yourself in that regard constitutes misconduct on your part under Regulation, 28 (xxiii) of APSRTC Employees’ (conduct) Regulations, 1963. 3. For having issued, along with requisite passenger tickets bearing nos.112/042656 to 657 E.2 of Rs.3/- den., three luggage tickets bearing nos.786/094899 to 881, E.3 of Rs.0.50 demn., which, (i.e.) the luggage tickets, were already sold and accounted for by you in the SR concerned during the previous trip of the service bus from Arakuvalley to Araku, (i.e.) during the trip previous to the trip under check in question, to another batch of two passengers, who boarded your service bus bearing no.AP10Z 2295 along with E.3 units of chargeable luggage viz., Steel-goods, at Arakuvalley during the trip under check in question, being bound for Araku, ex- stages 2-1, duly after collecting the requisite fare amount of Rs.7.50 ps. from them at their boarding point itself for their travel upto Araku, while you were conducting the service bus bearing no.APA 10Z 2295 on route Arakuvalley to Araku on 15.9.2000, which act of yourself in that regard constitutes misconduct on your part under Regulation no.28(xxiii) of APSRTC Employees’ (conduct) Regulations, 1963.” After conducting a detailed enquiry into the charges leveled against the petitioner, ultimately, the disciplinary authority passed an order dated 24.01.2001 removing the petitioner from service. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner filed appeal and it was rejected on 30.11.2001. The petitioner further preferred review and it was also rejected by order dated 25.01.2002. Thereafter, the petitioner filed I.D.No.73 of 2002, under Section 2-A (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short ‘the I.D.Act’), before the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court at Visakhapatnam. Before the Labour Court, it was the case of the petitioner that the distance between stage 2 and stage 1 is very short and negligible and on account of the short distance between the said two stages, the passengers could not unload their respective luggage from the bus and that at next stage, there was a check and nothing took place intentionally and the punishment awarded is not justified and it is quite disproportionate to the alleged misconduct. The management filed a counter affidavit before the Labour Court denying the allegations made by the petitioner-workman. It was their case that the cash and tickets irregularities that are committed by the petitioner-workman are very serious irregularities and therefore the punishment of removal passed against the petitioner is justified. Before the Labour Court, no oral and documentary evidence was adduced on behalf of the workman. However, on behalf of the management, though no oral evidence was adduced, documents Exs.M1 to M21 were marked. The Labour Court, after detailed consideration of the matter, held that the management is justified in removing the petitioner from service for the misconduct committed by him and, accordingly, dismissed the I.D. by the impugned award dated 28.06.2004, confirming the order of the management. Aggrieved thereby, the present writ petition is filed. Learned counsel for the petitioner strenuously contended that this is not a case of re-issue of tickets. Learned counsel also submitted that as the passengers, who travelled in the previous trip, could not unload their respective luggage from the bus in their previous trip, they waited till the next trip, and during that next trip, they got into the bus for unloading their luggage and, unfortunately, at that time, the check took place and those passengers produced the tickets which were in their possession. I have given my earnest consideration to the submissions made by the learned counsel and perused the impugned award and other material placed on record. The sum and substance of the charges framed against the workman is that he re-issued the tickets that were already sold and accounted for in the S.R. in earlier trip, having collected the requisite fares from the passengers. When the workman had collected fare from passengers, he was supposed to issue correct tickets to them immediately, but he failed to do so. The charges framed against the petitioner are grave in nature and were proved beyond any reasonable doubt. As seen from the impugned award, the Labour Court recorded its findings as under: “In view of the contentions of the parties, I have gone through the records. In Ex.M2 passenger statement, the passengers intimated the irregularities committed by the petitioner. The petitioner was issued a charge memo and he was asked by the TTIs to give his spot statement. The petitioner in Ex.M3 stated that he would give his explanation to the depot manager subsequently. The petitioner has not given any statement immediately to the depot manager. It appears that the petitioner failed to give explanation as he had no explanation to offer. The learned law officer for the management submitted that the petitioner issued the tickets which were already sold and accounted for and he issued the luggage ticket which was already sold and he issued another set of 3 luggage tickets which were already sold and when such allegations are made, the petitioner has to explain as to how the misconduct occurred. The learned law officer for the management relied on the decisions reported in 2001 (1) SCALE 373 (SC) (Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation Vs. B.S.Hullikatti), 2002 (92) FLR 12 (SC) (Regional Manager RSRT Corporation Vs. Ghan Shyam Sharma), 1998 (1) ALD 616 (FB) (G.R.Reddy Vs. Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Godavarikhani and others) and 2000(5) ALD 144 (DB) (S.A.Gani Vs. Chairman and Presiding Officer, Labour Court-I, Hyderabad and another) to support his contention and stated that the removal of the petitioner is justified. The petitioner was appointed as a conductor. As a conductor he has to discharge his duties truthfully and honestly. He is not supposed to cause loss to the corporation. A conductor has to collect the proper fare from the passengers and issue the correct tickets to the passengers. He is not expected to issue the tickets which were earlier sold. If a conductor issues the tickets which were sold after collecting the requisite fare from the passengers, then the management incurs loss and if all the conductors were resort to such methods, then one day or other, the corporation has to close down its activities. A conductor is expected to issue only regular tickets which are affixed to the tray box and he is not supposed to issue any other tickets to the passengers. I have gone through the decisions submitted by the learned law officer for the management. The petitioner issued the tickets which were sold earlier and he is not expected to issue such tickets to the passengers. On account of the said acts of the petitioner the management lost confidence in the petitioner. On the basis of the enquiry report and on account of the grave misconduct committed by the petitioner, the management removed him from service. In view of the decision submitted by the learned law officer for the management, I hold that the management is justified in removing the petitioner from service for the misconduct committed by him. The order of the management is to be confirmed.” By recording the findings as stated supra, the Labour Court has rightly confirmed the punishment imposed by the disciplinary authority, by its award dated 28.06.2004 passed in I.D.No.73 of 2002, holding that this is a case of re-issue of tickets, which is grave misconduct. Thus, I am of the considered opinion that the Labour Court has not committed any error in coming to the conclusion that the management is justified in removing the petitioner from service for the misconduct committed by him and, accordingly, confirmed the order of punishment passed by the management. The writ petition is, therefore, devoid of merits and is liable to be dismissed. The writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed. No order as to costs. _____________ C.V.RAMULU,J 01.02.2011 v v