IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE TWENTY SEVENTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN PRESENT: THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT PETITION No.7252 of 2008 Between: The Depot Manager, APSRTC, Kukatpally bus depot ..... PETITIONER A N D B. Shankaraiah and another ..... RESPONDENTS ORDER: The Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation (A.P.S.R.T.C.) assails the Award passed by the Additional Industrial Tribunal-cum-Additional Labour Court, Hyderabad, in I.D.No.110 of 2006. By the said Award, the Labour Court set aside the A.P.S.R.T.C.’s order dated 17-07-2005 removing the first respondent-Conductor from service and directed his re-instatement in service with all benefits except back wages. The first respondent entered the service of the A.P.S.R.T.C. as a Conductor on regular basis on 15-07-1987. While he was conducting the service on route No.102/10Y/F on 10-03-2005, a check was made at stage No.6 Yousufguda and certain cash and ticket irregularities were allegedly detected. He was accordingly subjected to disciplinary proceedings on the charge that he had re- issued used tickets of Rs.7/- denomination to two individual passengers. Dissatisfied with his explanation, the A.P.S.R.T.C. instituted an enquiry into the matter. Thereupon, the Enquiry Officer held that the charge leveled against the first respondent-Conductor was duly approved. Consequently, the first respondent-Conductor was removed from service under the order dated 17-07-2005. His appeal and thereafter, his review, having met with failure, the first respondent-Conductor raised the subject industrial dispute before the Labour Court under Section 2-A (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Before the Labour Court, the first respondent-Conductor filed a memo stating that he was not disputing the validity of the enquiry. The Labour Court, upon examination of the material on record, came to the conclusion that the case on hand was a fit one for re-appreciation of the evidence. The Labour Court took note of the fact that the charge sheet issued to the first respondent-Conductor was ambiguous and vague in the context of required particulars, as it did not speak of the boarding and alighting points of the passengers who were found with used tickets. Further, on facts, the Labour Court took note of the fact that one of the two passengers ran away without giving his spot statement, while the statement of the other passenger was being recorded. This aspect, as rightly held by the Labour Court, causes any amount of suspicion as to the bonefides of the said passenger. The statement of the other passenger was also not supported by due evidence as he did not sign the ticket. The passenger examined by the first respondent-Conductor spoke in his favour and his evidence remained un-rebuted. It is in the light of this evidence that the Labour Court came to the conclusion that the removal from service visited upon the first respondent- Conductor by the A.P.S.R.T.C. was not warranted as sufficient material was not available on record in support thereof. It accordingly granted relief as afore stated. Pertinent to note, the interest of the A.P.S.R.T.C. was also duly protected by the Labour Court by denying back wages to the first respondent-Conductor for the period that he remained out of service. Given the totality of the facts and circumstances as afore stated, this Court is of the view that no valid grounds are made out to interfere with the Award under challenge, in exercise of certiorari jurisdiction. The Labour Court, having found the case on hand to be a fit one for re-examination on factual aspects, rightly weighed all the relevant circumstances and held in favour of the first respondent- Conductor. Needless to state, as the Labour Court denied him back wages, grant of all other benefits would mean that the first respondent-Conductor is only entitled notionally to the attendant benefits during the period that he remained out of service and would not be entitled to any monetary arrears on this count. The writ petition is therefore devoid of merit and is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. ____________________ SANJAY KUMAR, J January 27, 2011. Pn THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT PETITION No.7252 of 2008 January 27, 2011