THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU W.P.No.9324 of 2005 ORAL ORDER: This writ petition is directed against the award made in I.D.No.217 of 2001 dated 13.12.2004 on the file of the learned Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Guntur, whereunder the reference made by the Government under Section 10-1(c) of the I.D. Act, which reads as under: “Whether the action of the Dy. Chief Traffic Manager (Rur-1) APSRTC, Vijayawada Region, Vijayawada in imposing punishment on R.Sambaiah, Conductor by reinstating him as fresh conductor is justified?” was answered in favour of workman and directed the petitioner- management to reinstate the workman with continuity of service, but without any back wages. It appears, the workman-R.Sambaiah, while conducting the Bus on the route Avanigadda to Uttagudem on 20.5.1999, a check was exercised by the checking officials at stage No.2 and it was found that the workman was involved in certain cash and ticket irregularities. Thereafter a charge sheet was issued to the workman with the following charges: “1. For having collected the requisite fare of Rs.2.50 ps. and failed to issue ticket to a lady passenger who boarded the bus at Avanigadda and bound for Machavaram i.e. ex-stages 1 to 2. 2. For having closed all denominations upto stage No.2 without issuing ticket to a lady passenger”. The workman submitted his explanation to the said charge sheet and having not satisfied with the same, a regular enquiry was ordered and the enquiry officer after conducting a detailed enquiry, submitted his report holding the workman guilty of the charges. On the basis of the report of the enquiry officer, the disciplinary authority imposed the punishment of removal from service on 9.9.1999. Aggrieved thereby, workman filed appeal before the appellate authority and the appellate authority vide his order dated 26.11.1999 ordered fresh appointment. Being aggrieved by the same, Union raised a dispute and ultimately the same was referred to the Labour Court under Section 10-1(c) of the I.D. Act. Before the Labour Court, none were examined on either side and no documents were marked on behalf of workman, however on behalf of management, Exs.M1 to M19 were marked. After a detailed consideration of oral and documentary evidence, the Labour Court came to the conclusion that the enquiry was properly conducted. However, the findings recorded by the enquiry officer, as confirmed by the disciplinary authority, that the workman has committed cash and ticket irregularities were not accepted and found that there was no negligence on the part of the workman in attending to his duties. Thus, directed the management to reinstate the workman with continuity of service, but without any back wages. Aggrieved by the same, the present writ petition is filed by the management. The learned counsel for petitioner-management strenuously contended that though the respondent-workman collected Rs.2.50 ps. from the lady passenger, failed to issue the ticket. Whereas the learned counsel appearing for respondent- workman supported the award passed by the Labour Court and submitted that the writ petition is devoid of merits and liable to be dismissed. Having heard both sides and perused the impugned award and other material made available on record, I am of the opinion that in fact, in the very charge and the findings recorded by the enquiry officer shows that though the lady passenger was having the ticket of Rs.2.50 ps., she was sleeping and when the check was exercised, she suddenly woke up and when the checking officials threatened to impose a fine of Rs.50/-, she immediately taken a different stand stating that she paid the money, but the Conductor did not issue the ticket. This statement was not properly appreciated by the authorities. Under those circumstances, I am of the opinion that the Labour Court has not committed any error in passing the impugned award, which does not call for any interference by this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The writ petition is devoid of merits and liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. ______________ C.V.RAMULU, J Date: 7.2.2011 DA THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU W.P.No.9324 of 2005 7.2.2011 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU W.P.No.9324 of 2005 Date: 7th February, 2011 Between: The Deputy Chief Traffic Manager (Rural), APSRTC, Vijayawada Region, Vijayawada, Krishna district. .. Petitioner And The Depot Secretary, APSRTC National Mazdoor Union, Vuyyur Depot and another. .. Respondents