IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 19011 of 1999 Between: A.F.Kailasa Rao, S/o.Girirajulu, R/o.H.NO.1-19-49, Rasoolpura, Secunderabad-3. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Hon'ble Labour Court-III, rep. by its Presiding Officer, Chandravihar Building, 4th M.J.Road, Hyderabad. 2 The Depot Manager, A.P.S.R.T.C., Pargi, R.R.District. .....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 call for the records from the 1st respondent and issue an appropriate Writ, Order or Direction, particularly one in the nature of Writ of Certiorari and quash the Award passed by the 1st respondent in I.D.NO.174 of 1992, dated:3.3.1993, published on 30.4.1993, in so far as inflicting the punishment of foregoing the increments accrued during the period of suspension till the date of reinstatement as illegal, unjust, contrary to law and perverse; and grant all consequential benefits; and pass such other order or orders as deemed fit and proper under the circumstances of the case. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.A.K.JAYAPRAKASH RAO Counsel for the Respondent No.1: None Counsel for the Respondent No.2: MR.K.MADHAVA REDDY The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 19011 of 1999 ORDER: In this writ petition, the petitioner has questioned the Award of the Labour Court-III, Hyderabad, dated 3.3.1993, passed in I.D. No. 174 of 1992. The petitioner was initially appointed as a Conductor in the year 1984. He was removed from service after holding domestic enquiry by way of punishment in disciplinary proceedings. The said order of removal, as confirmed by the appellate authority was questioned by the petitioner by way of an application under Section 2A(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short ‘the Act’). The Industrial Tribunal, by Award dated 3.3.1993, passed in I.D. No.174 of 1992, while confirming the findings on the charges levelled against the petitioner, examined the proportionality of the punishment vis-à-vis the gravity of the charges. The Tribunal in exercise of its discretion under Section 11-A of the Act, while directing reinstatement of the petitioner into service with continuity of service, however, ordered that the petitioner was not entitled for increments, which he would have earned during the period of suspension till the date of reinstatement and he was also denied the back wages, during the period for which he was out of service. The petitioner was conducting the bus from Mohamodanpally to Barwad on 15.11.1985. In the transit, there was a check by the checking officials and during the course of check, they found that three passengers were travelling without ticket and the petitioner had violated the rule of not closing the tray numbers by observing the rule “issue and start”. After conducting necessary domestic enquiry, the management removed the petitioner from service on the ground that the charges levelled against the petitioner were held proved. When the petitioner has questioned the said order of removal before the Tribunal on the ground that counter affidavit was not filed, the Tribunal declared the domestic enquiry was vitiated, but, however, on filing a miscellaneous application by the management, it had recorded evidence. On behalf of the management, one witness was examined as M.W.1 and Exs. M1 to M17 were marked. The petitioner-workman was examined as W.W.1. The only defence of the petitioner that when he got down at Stage No.4 to attend natural calls, those three passengers entered into the bus and were resting on the back seats was not believed. The Tribunal having considered the documentary and oral evidence on record, recorded a finding that the charges of mis-conduct levelled against the petitioner are proved, but however, while using its discretion contemplated under Section 11A of the Act, ordered for reinstatement without extending the benefit of increments and back wages. In this writ petition, the only argument advanced on behalf of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the stoppage or denial of increments and back wages would amount to two punishments. The said submission of the learned counsel cannot be accepted. It cannot be construed as two independent punishments. In fact, the punishment of removal of the petitioner from service was ordered in view of the proven misconduct alleged against the petitioner. However, having regard to the gravity of the charges levelled against the petitioner, the Tribunal while exercising its discretion under Section 11A of the Act, ordered reinstatement of the petitioner by denying the increments, which the petitioner would have earned during the period for which he was absent; besides denying back wages. Inasmuch as the charges levelled against the petitioner are held proved before the Tribunal, I do not find any ground to interfere with the Award of the Tribunal, in this writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The writ petition is devoid of merits and it is accordingly dismissed. No costs. ___________________ R.SUBHASH REDDY,J Date: 18th August, 2008 pnb REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1 The Depot Manager, A.P.S.R.T.C., Pargi, R.R.District. 2 2CCs to the learned Standing Counsel, A.P.S.R.T.C., High Court Buildings, Hyderabad (OUT). 3 .2CD copies