IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE TWENTY FIFTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 6194 of 2008 Between: M.V. Kumar S/o. Chennaiah Medak District, A.P. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Depot Manager, APSRTC, Sangareddy Bus Depot, Medak District, A.P. 2 The Presiding Officer, Labour Court No.II, Chandra Vihar, Nampally, Hyderabad. .....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 issue a writ, order or direction more particularly a writ in the nature of writ of Certiorari calling for the records relating to the impugned award in I.D.No.64/2005 dated 18.10.2007 on the file the respondent No.2 herein and quash the same by declaring it bad, arbitrary, illegal and consequently direct the respondent No.1 to reinstate the petitioner with continuity of service and all attendant benefits with full back wages and with all other consequential service benefits and pass such other order or orders Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.P.VENKATESWAR RAO Counsel for the Respondent No.: MR.KAMBHAM MADHAVA REDDY The Court made the following : THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY Writ Petition No.6194 of 2008 ORDER: The petitioner challenges the award dated 18-10-2007 passed by the Labour Court-II, Hyderabad, in I.D.No.64 of 2005. The petitioner was employed as Conductor in the Sanga Reddy Depot of A.P.S.R.T.C. On 14-11-1991, he was entrusted with the duty of selling tickets, and was issued a tray containing ticket blocks of various denominations. He did not hand over the tray, or the way bill, much less the cash. He reported to duty only on 02-04-1992. Therefore, a charge-sheet was issued on 20-05-1992, and domestic enquiry was conducted. On the basis of the report submitted by the Inquiry Officer, the Depot Manager, the 1st respondent removed the petitioner from service, vide order dated 03- 11-1992. The departmental remedies availed by the petitioner were not fruitful. Therefore, he filed I.D.No.64 of 2005 under Section 2-A(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act (for short ‘the Act’). Through the impugned award, the Labour Court refused to grant any relief to the petitioner. Sri P. Venkateswer Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that his client did not entertain any idea of misappropriating the amount, and the default on his part occurred on account of certain ill-health. He contends that the petitioner has deposited a sum of Rs.2,000/- and was prepared to pay the balance also. He submits that the Labour Court ought to have exercised the discretion under Section 11-A of the Act, if necessary by imposing a minor penalty against the petitioner. Smt. B.G. Uma Devi, learned Standing Counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, submits that the petitioner resorted to serious acts of misconduct, and as a matter of fact, he deserved a penalty of dismissal, apart from prosecution. The charge against the petitioner not only reflects unauthorized absenteeism for 4 ½ months, but also the failure to hand over the ticket tray; the sale proceeds of tickets, and the way bill. Rarely do we come across a case, where a Conductor resorts to such acts of gross indiscipline, with impunity. It is not disputed that on 14-11-1991 the petitioner was entrusted with the duty of selling tickets, and he realized an amount of Rs.5,200/-. Neither he handed over the cash, nor the unsold tickets, to the depot. He coolly went away and returned only after 4 ½ months. A lame excuse of ill-health was taken, which does not deserve any consideration. Even if there existed any doubt, as to the intention, on the part of the petitioner, the same is cleared with the subsequent conduct of the petitioner. As late as on 07-04-1992, he remitted a sum of Rs.2,000/- and promised to pay the balance, at a later point of time. The petitioner virtually left no scope, either for departmental authorities, or for the Labour Court; to grant any relief. This Court is not inclined to interfere with the impugned award. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________________ L. NARASIMHA REDDY, J. Dt: 25-03-2008. KO To 1.2CCs to 2.2CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WP{MSN}