THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH WRIT PETITION NOs:2232 of 2002 & 16434 of 2002 DATE:9.2.2011. Between: A.P.S. R.T.C. REP BY ITS DEPOT MANAGER & OTHERS PETITIONERS. & G.KISHTAIAH RESPONDENT. THIS COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH WRIT PETITION NOS:2232 OF 2002 & 16434 OF 2002 COMMON ORDER: W.P.2232 of 2002 is filed by the A.P.S R.T.C and W.P.16434 of 2002 is filed by the petitioner-workman questioning the award made in I.D.No:155 of 2000 on 4.6.2001 by the Labour Court-I, Hyderabad. Therefore, both the writ petitions are being disposed of by this common order with the consent of the learned counsel appearing for the parties. The status of the parties will be referred to as the petitioner- workman and A.P.S. R.T.C for the sake of convenience. The facts which are not in dispute briefly are as under: The petitioner-workman was a conductor appointed in the year 1989 and on 1.12.1990, his services were regularized. On the ground that during the check exercised by the A.P.S. R.T.C authorities on 8.3.1992, he failed to issue tickets to three passengers, the following charges have been framed against him in the same verbatum: 1.For having failed to complete the ticket issues within one fare stage which is misconduct on your part vide Regulation No:28 (vi) (a) of A.P.S. R.T.C Employees (Conduct) Regulation 1963. 2.For having failed to collect the requisite fare and issue tickets to a btch of three passengers who were found alighting without tickets at stage No:15 and who were boarded your bus at Darga Mile Stone Ex.Stage No:16 and found alighting at Railapur Ex.Stage No:15, which is serious misconduct on your part vide Regulation No:28 (vi) (a) and (xxxii) of A.P.S. R.T.C Employees (Conduct) Regulations 1963”.. An enquiry was conducted into the charges leveled against the petitioner-workman and ultimately, he was removed from service by an order dated 28.6.1992. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner-workman preferred an appeal and review before the authorities and the same have ended in dismissal confirming the order of removal. Thereupon, the petitioner-workman raised an industrial dispute by filing an application under section 2 (a) (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act before the Presiding Officer-Labour Court-I, Hyderabad and the learned Labour Court by award dated 4.6.2001 allowed the I.D in part setting aside the order of removal passed against the petitioner-workman and directed the A.P.S.R.T.C to reinstate the petitioner-workman with continuity of service and 50% of back wages and attendant benefits holding that denial of 50% of the wages is a measure of punishment for the mis conduct of the petitioner-workman. Aggrieved by the same, A.P.S.R.T.C filed W.P.2232 of 2002 and aggrieved by the denial of 50% back wages, the petitioner-workman filed W.P.16434 of 2002. Heard the learned counsel and perused the material available on record. The learned standing counsel for the A.P.S.R.T.C submits that in this case, there are no procedural irregularities or violation of principles of natural justice and that the charges leveled against the petitioner- workman are proved and therefore, the Labour Court ought to have sustained the order of removal instead of ordering reinstatement with continuity of service and 50% back wages and attendant benefits. Placing reliance on the judgment of the Apex Court reported in REGIONAL MANAGER, RAJASTHAN STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION VS. GHANSHYAM SHARMA ([1]), he submits that the award passed by the Labour Court is justifiable and needs no interference. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the petitioner-workman submits that it is not a case of mis appropriation and there are instructions from the Corporation to stop the vehicle as and when the passengers get into the bus with a view to improve the facilities to the passengers and that is why, the three passengers referred to in the charges were allowed to get into the bus at the stage between 15 to 16 and while the petitioner, who was on duty as conductor was about to issueing tickets, meanwhile the check was exercised and the three passengers were found traveling without tickets. Therefore, he submits that hardly, there was no breathing time for the petitioner-workman to issue tickets and therefore, no illegality can be attributed to the petitioner-workman and in these circumstances, the labour Court ought to have ordered reinstatement of the petitioner-workman including continuity of service with full back wages and as such, the award passed by the labour Court is liable to be modified with a direction to pay the remaining 50% of the back wages. There is no dispute on the facts of the case. On the ground that during the check exercised by the A.P.S. R.T.C authorities on 8.3.1992, the petitioner-workman who was a conductor appointed in the year 1989 and whose services were regularized on 1.12.1990, failed to issue tickets to three passengers, the following charges have been framed against him in the same verbatum: 1.For having failed to complete the ticket issues within one fare stage which is misconduct on your part vide Regulation No:28 (vi) (a) of A.P.S. R.T.C Employees (Conduct) Regulation 1963. 2.For having failed to collect the requisite fare and issue tickets to a batch of three passengers who were found alighting without tickets at stage No:15 and who were boarded your bus at Darga Mile Stone Ex.Stage No:16 and found alighting at Railapur Ex.Stage No:15, which is serious misconduct on your part vide Regulation No:28 (vi) (a) and (xxxii) of A.P.S. R.T.C Employees (Conduct) Regulations 1963”.. The petitioner-workman denied the charges and submitted his explanation to the charge memo. In so far as charge No:1 is concerned, the explanation of the petitioner-workman is that the service being Sub- urban service, the petitioner-workman issued all the tickets at the boarded place, which is prior to the reach to the next fare stage. In so far as charge No:2 is concerned, his explanation was that three passengers boarded the bus between stage Nos.15 and 16, but not stage No:16 as alleged by the checking officials. It is also his explanation that when service was moving very slowly due to bad condition of the road, the petitioner-workman was slowly approaching the passengers in question for issuing the ticket and collecting the fare and in the meanwhile the check was exercised. It was also his explanation that at stage No:15, about 50 passengers boarded the bus and because of short distance between stage Nos.15 and 16, hardly he could complete the issuance of tickets to 30 passengers and when the tickets in respect of three passengers were about to be issued, they fell in discussion for taking ticket i.e., either for Ranigunj or Boinapally and in the meanwhile, the service reached to stage No:15 and at that time, the check was exercised. Pursuant to the charge sheet, an enquiry was conducted into the charges leveled against the petitioner-workman and ultimately, he was removed from service by an order dated 28.6.1992. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner-workman has availed the remedy available under the Regulation by way of an appeal and review before the authorities and the same have ended in dismissal confirming the order of removal. Thereupon, the petitioner-workman raised an industrial dispute by filing an application under section 2 A (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act before the Presiding Officer-Labour Court-I, Hyderabad. Before the Labour Court, neither the petitioner-workman was examined nor anybody was examined on his behalf and no documents were marked. On behalf of the corporation, no one was examined. But, Exs.M1 to M16 were marked. The learned Labour Court by award dated 4.6.2001 having observed that the petitioner did not collect the fare amount from the passengers in question and the same goes to show that he had no malafide intention to defraud the revenue of the Corporation and apart from that, the involvement of cash in the proved mis conduct is Rs.1.80 paise, allowed the I.D in part setting aside the order of removal passed against the petitioner-workman and directed the A.P.S.R.T.C to reinstate the petitioner-workman with continuity of service and 50% of back wages and attendant benefits holding that denial of 50% of the wages is a measure of punishment for the mis conduct of the petitioner-workman. Coming to the facts of the case, the fact remains that the facts and circumstances of the case, under which the bus was plying between stage Nos.15 and 16 and 50 passengers boarded at Stage No:16, go to show that the petitioner had put his efforts to issue the tickets to the three passengers in question and in the meanwhile, the check was exercised. But, at the same, it does not mean that the said act does not amount to violation of ‘rule of issue and start’. At this stage, the learned counsel for the petitioner-workman would submit that it has to be examined as to whether there was any misappropriation or not on the part of the petitioner-workman so as to know his bonafides. In the instant case, it is not a case of misappropriation or found in excess of amount in the S.R. But, it is a case of non-issuance of tickets and non collection of fare. Thereby, no doubt, loss is sustained to the Corporation. But, at the same time, it can be said that no malafides can be attributed against the petitioner-workman and the said aspect has rightly been considered by the Labour Court. In this view of the matter and in view of the gravity of the act on the part of the petitioner-work, the Labour Court is justified in taking a view that the punishment imposed against the petitioner-workman was harsh and severe while modifying the order of removal to that of reinstatement with continuity of service and 50% back wages along with attendant benefits In the instant case. In my considered view, the order impugned herein does not suffer from any illegality or irregularity warranting interference by this Court by invoking the provisions of Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Therefore, the writ petitions filed by A.P.S.R.T.C and the petitioner- workman are devoid of merits and thereby, they are liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, W.P.2232 of 2002 filed by A.P.S. R.T.C and W.P.16434 of 2002 filed by the petitioner-workman are dismissed. No order as to costs. _________________ Justice G.Chandraiah. Date:9.2.2011 Gurc. THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH WRIT PETITION NOs:2232 of 2002 & 16434 of 2002 DATE:9.2.2011. [1] 2000-LLR-0-242