THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU W.P.No.1040 of 2006 ORAL ORDER: This writ petition is directed against the award made in I.D.No.207 of 2003 dated 16.7.2005 on the file of the learned Chairman, Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Ananthapur wherein the application filed under Section 2-A(2) of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 seeking to set aside the order dated 4.2.2002 removing the respondent-workman from service was allowed partly directing the petitioner-management to reinstate the workman into service with continuity of service, and attendant benefits, but without any back wages. It appears, respondent-workman was appointed as Conductor in the year 1979. In the check exercised by the checking officials on 4.10.2001, the workman was found to be involved in cash and ticket irregularities. Therefore, a charge sheet was issued to him enumerating the following charges: “1. For having sold out the tickets E.265 of various denominations ticket blocks unserially contained in the tray No.016 allotted to you as mentioned in the allegations with malafide intention by you, which constitutes serious misconduct under Regulation 28 (xxxii) of APSRTC Employees (Conduct) Regulations, 1963. 2. For having failed to account the sale deed of tickets E.265 in the way bill and to remit the amount Rs.7341-00 to the Corporation revenue by you which constitutes serious misconduct under Regulation 28 (xxv) and (xxxii) of APSRTC Employees (Conduct) Regulations, 1963. 3. For having misappropriated the amount of Rs.7341-00 i.e. the value of tickets E.265 which were sold out unserially by you as mentioned in the above statement without remitting the amount to the Corporation revenue which constitutes serious misconduct under Regulation 28 (x) and (xxxi) of APSRTC Employees (Conduct) Regulations, 1963.” The respondent-workman submitted his explanation to the above charge sheet. Having not satisfied with the same, a regular enquiry was ordered and the enquiry officer after conducting enquiry, submitted report holding the petitioner guilty of the charges. Thereafter, the disciplinary authority, after completing all the formalities, passed the order of removal from service on 4.2.2002. Aggrieved by the same, respondent-workman preferred appeal and revision and both the appellate authority and revisional authority rejected the same. Having left with no other option, he raised industrial dispute under Section 2-A(2) of I.D. Act before the Labour Court, Ananthapur. Before the Labour Court, it was the case of the respondent-workman that the enquiry was not properly conducted and absolutely there was no evidence to hold him guilty of the charges and even assuming that the charges are proved, punishment of removal from service is shockingly disproportionate to that of the misconduct alleged. The management filed a detailed counter supporting the removal order passed by disciplinary authority. None were examined either on behalf of workman or management and no documents were marked on behalf of workman, however on behalf of management, Exs.M1 to M18 were marked. After a detailed consideration of the entire material placed before it, the Labour Court came to the conclusion that the charges are not proved, therefore workman is entitled for reinstatement into service with continuity of service, attendant benefits, but without any back wages. Aggrieved by the same, management filed the present writ petition. The learned counsel for petitioner-management stated that the Labour Court failed to see the gravity of the charges. The Conductor holds a post of trust and as such any breach amounts to serious misconduct and loss of confidence. The Labour Court failed to consider the evidence in proper perspective. It was not in dispute that the workman sold the tickets in unserial number and failed to remit the same to the Corporation. The findings recorded by the Labour court are contrary to evidence on record, therefore they are liable to be declared as such. Whereas the learned counsel for respondent-workman supported the award passed by the Labour Court and stated that the respondent- workman has not committed any misconduct as alleged and the Labour Court itself held the charges as not proved. I have given my earnest consideration to the respective submissions made by the learned counsel on either side and perused the impugned award and other material made available on record. In the award, the Labour Court while allowing the claim of the workman, observed that the enquiry officer in his detailed enquiry report Ex.M12 categorically stated at page No.6 that it is not possible for the workman to sell 265 tickets of various denominations value of Rs.7,431/- within a day. Again he observed at page No.8 that the workman now and then with the aid of Assistant Depot Clerk provisionally spent for themselves without remitting the amount and misused the cash of the Corporation. These two versions of the enquiry officer as found in the enquiry report are quite contradicting each other. The Labour Court, in the facts and circumstances of the case and while exercising powers vested in it under Section 11-A of the I.D. Act allowed the claim of the workman. The findings recorded by the Labour Court cannot be said to be baseless. The Labour Court has considered each and every aspect of the case and decided the matter on its own merits and passed the impugned award, which does not call for any interference by this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The writ petition is devoid of merits and liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. ______________ C.V.RAMULU, J Date: 9.2.2011 DA THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU W.P.No.1040 of 2006 9.2.2011 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU W.P.No.1040 of 2006 Date: 9th February, 2011 Between: The Depot Manager, APSRTC, Guntakal Depot, Guntakal, Ananthapur district. .. Petitioner And The Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Ananthapur and another. .. Respondents