IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 8158 of 2008 Between: M.B. Goud, S/o. Balram Goud, APSRTC, Narayanpet Bus Depot, Mahaboobnagar, Andhra Pradesh. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Depot Manager, APSRTC, Narayanpet Bus Depot, Mahaboobnagar, Andhra Pradesh. 2 The Presiding Officer, Labour Court-III, Chandra Vihar, 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 or order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Certiorari calling for the records relating to the impugned award in I.D.No. 77/2006, dated 05-06-2007 on the file of the Respondent No.2 herein and quash the same by declaring it bad, arbitrary, illegal and consequently direct the respondent No.1 to treat the period from date of removal (04-9-2006) to the date of my superannuation as on duty for all purposes and pass Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.P.VENKATESWAR RAO Counsel for the Respondent No.: SMT.B.G.UMA DEVI The Court made the following : THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY Writ Petition No.8158 of 2008 ORDER: The petitioner was employed as a Conductor in Narayanpet Depot of A.P.S.R.T.C., in the year 1975. A charge-sheet was issued to him on 23-01-2006, alleging that, while conducting a service on 23-01-2006, he collected a sum of Rs.40/-, as fare, from a lady passenger and did not issue ticket to her. Not satisfied with the explanation submitted by the petitioner, the 1st respondent ordered departmental inquiry. Through his order dated 04-09-2006, the 1st respondent removed the petitioner from service. After unsuccessfully availing the departmental remedies, petitioner filed I.D.No.77 of 2006 in the Labour Court-III, Hyderabad. Through its award dated 05-06-2007, the Labour Court dismissed the I.D. Hence, this writ petition. Sri P. Venkateswer Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that the Labour Court did not appreciate the evidence on record, properly. According to him, the absence of ticket with the passenger was on account of her lapse, and it was not established that the petitioner did not issue ticket, at all. Other contentions are also urged. He further contends that having regard to the fact that the petitioner was to reach the age of superannuation, within few months from the date of disposal of the I.D., a limited relief, enabling the petitioner to avail the terminal benefits; ought to have been granted by the Labour Court. Smt B.G. Uma Devi, learned Standing Counsel for the 1st respondent, on the other hand, submits that it was proved beyond any reasonable doubt, that the petitioner collected the fare, but did not issue tickets. She further contends that the past record of the petitioner is not clean. As many as 11, his increments were deferred; he was suspended six times; and removed from service in the years 1982, 1989, 1997 and 2003. The main charge against the petitioner was, that he collected Rs.40/- from the passenger, and that the said passenger was found travelling without ticket. On this basis, other charges, in relation to the relevant Service Regulations, were also framed. The petitioner was not able to establish, either in the domestic inquiry, or before the Labour Court, that he issued ticket to the said passenger. The Labour Court had gone through the entire material and found that the charge against the petitioner was proved. No defects were noticed in the domestic inquiry. The Labour Court does have the power under Section 11-A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, to grant relief, even where a charge is proved. That, however, would depend upon the past conduct of an employee, and the sympathy he gains from the Court. The petitioner has one of the worst possible records of service. He was removed from service on four occasions; suspended on equal number of occasions, and imposed penalty of stoppage of increments on 11 times. The mere fact, that the petitioner retired from service within three months from the date of the award of the Labour Court, hardly constitutes any ground, to grant any relief to the petitioner. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to cost. _______________________ L. NARASIMHA REDDY, J. Dt.17-04-2008. KO To 1.2CCs to 2.2CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WP{SPJS}