THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO.12376 OF 2001 DATED 28TH OCTOBER, 2010 BETWEEN K.Sunil … Petitioner And APSRTC, Rep. by its Depot Manager, Bus Depot, Mancherial, Dist: Adilabad. … Respondent THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO.12376 OF 2001 ORDER: The unsuccessful petitioner in I.D.No.41 of 1998 on the file of the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Godavarikhani, assails the NIL Award dated 22.01.2001 passed therein. The petitioner was a Conductor in the service of the Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation (APSRTC). While he was conducting the bus service between Mancherial and Neelwai on 09.12.1997, a surprise check was made between stages 12 and 11 and certain cash and ticket irregularities were allegedly detected. He was subjected to disciplinary proceedings under charge sheet dated 26.12.1997 on the following charges: “CHARGE No.1 For having violated the rule ‘Issue & Start’ which is mis- conduct in terms of Reg.No.28(xxxii) of APSRTC Employees (Conduct) Regulation, 1963. CHARGE No.2 For having collected the fare from a batch of 15 passengers each Rs.4.00 at boarding point itself and failed to issue the tickets, who boarded your bus at Kotipally and bound for Chennur ex-stages 12 to 9, which is mis-conduct in terms of Reg.No.28(vi)(a) of APSRTC Employees (Conduct) Regulation, 1963. CHARGE No.3 For having refused to acknowledge the charge memo No.0760931 at check place and refused to attest on the passenger statement, which is obtained in your presence in the bus, which is mis-conduct in terms of Reg.No.28(xxv) of APSRTC Employees (Conduct) Regulation, 1963. CHARGE No.4 For having thrown the cash bag and MTD 267 book in the bus and ran away into the bushes/trees without attesting the passengers statement and without signing on your spot explanation which shows your gross negligence and insubordination about TTIs and comes under mis-conduct vide Reg.No.28(ix)(a) and (viii) of APSRTC Employees (Conduct) Regulation, 1963.” Dissatisfied with his explanation, the APSRTC initiated an enquiry into the matter. By report dated 28.03.1998, the Enquiry Officer held that the charges levelled against the petitioner were duly proved. The petitioner was thereupon removed from service under proceedings dated 26.05.1998. Aggrieved thereby, he filed the subject I.D. under Section 2-A(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for brevity, ‘the Act of 1947’). By Award dated 22.01.2001, the Labour Court held that charges 1 and 2 levelled against the petitioner were proved and that the punishment of removal from service was proportionate thereto. It is relevant to note that the stand of the petitioner all through was that a batch of 15 passengers boarded the bus en route at Kotipally Police Station and that they tendered a hundred rupees note towards the ticket fare. The petitioner claimed that he was in the process of issuing tickets to them when the bus was stopped by the checking officials at Sarwaipet, a mere furlong from Kotipally Police Station. He therefore claimed innocence in so far as charge 2 is concerned. The version put forth by the petitioner found support not only in the evidence of the service Driver who spoke of the fact that a batch of passengers boarded the bus at Kotipally Police Station but also the checking official himself, who admitted that the petitioner had not closed the ticket tray numbers against stage 11 and that he had informed them that he still had to issue tickets to some of the passengers while handing over the ticket tray and service S.R. to them. His further statement that the ticketless passengers had also informed him that the petitioner had counted their number for issuing tickets and then proceeded to his seat, also supports the petitioner. Charge 2 of the four charges was a serious one reflecting upon the integrity of the petitioner. A positive finding against the petitioner on the said charge would justify the punishment of removal from service imposed upon him. Once the petitioner invoked its jurisdiction, it was incumbent upon the Labour Court under Section 11-A of the Act of 1947 to undertake an examination as to the validity of the enquiry held against the petitioner and then, the correctness of the findings recorded therein against him. The Award under challenge reflects that the Labour Court did not even go into the aspect of the validity of the enquiry. The Labour Court merely extracted the gist of the material placed on record and baldly stated thereafter that the petitioner failed to issue tickets to 15 passengers having received the fare from them. The Labour Court recorded that charges 1 and 2 were proved against the petitioner and that the punishment of removal from service was in proportion to the said charges. No mention whatsoever is made with regard to the finding on charges 3 and 4, indicative of the shallow and perfunctory approach on the part of the Labour Court in dealing with the matter. The Award reflects the scant regard that the Labour Court had towards the obligation placed on it under Section 11-A of the Act of 1947 while dealing with matters involving ‘discharge’ or ‘dismissal’ of a workman. When the very future of the petitioner hung in balance, the Labour Court ought to have at least applied its mind to the defence put forth by him and given its findings thereon in the context of the enquiry proceedings. No such exercise is however manifest in the Award under challenge. The errors therein are thus apparent on the face of the record. The Award dated 22.01.2001 passed in I.D.No.41 of 1998 is accordingly set aside and the matter is remitted to the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Godavarikhani, for consideration afresh in accordance with Section 11-A of the Act of 1947. As the matter has been kept pending for nearly a decade, it is in the interest of both parties that the issue be settled expeditiously. The Labour Court is therefore directed to give priority to this matter and dispose of the same within six (6) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Needless to state, the Labour Court shall decide the matter independently without reference to the observations on merits made hereinbefore. The Writ Petition is accordingly allowed to the extent indicated above. No order as to costs. ____________________ SANJAY KUMAR, J. 28TH OCTOBER, 2010. Note: Registry is directed to transmit the LC Record to the Court below forthwith. B/O VGSR/PGS