THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO.4931 OF 2008 DATED 23RD DECEMBER, 2010 BETWEEN: The Depot Manager, APSRTC Hanamkonda Bus Depot, Warangal District. … Petitioner A n d The Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Warangal, and another. …Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO.4931 OF 2008 O R D E R The Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation (APSRTC) assails the Award dated 26.03.2004 passed by the Industrial Tribunal-cum- Labour Court, Warangal, in I.D.No.127 of 2004. By the said Award, arising out of a reference under Section 10(1)(d) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for brevity, ‘the Act of 1947’), the Labour Court altered the punishment of reduction of pay by two incremental stages with cumulative effect visited upon the second respondent Conductor to that of reduction of pay by two incremental stages without cumulative effect. The second respondent was appointed as a Conductor in the service of the APSRTC in the year 1990 and his services as such were regularized on 01.07.1991. While he was conducting the service en route CBSE to Hasanparthy on 23.04.1998, a check was made at Stage No.19/17 Shakunthala Cinema Theatre. Under charge sheet dated 29.04.1998, the second respondent was subjected to disciplinary proceedings in connection with his failure to collect fare from three passengers and issue tickets to them. After conducting an enquiry in the matter, the APSRTC passed orders dated 17.06.1998 withholding his two annual increments with cumulative effect. His appeal against the said order was rejected on 29.09.1999 and his review met with the same fate on 15.06.2001. The second respondent sought conciliation through the Labour authorities in the year 2002 and having met with failure there also, he sought reference of the dispute through the Government of Andhra Pradesh under Section 10 of the Act of 1947. The Labour Court, upon examination of the material on record, found that though there were only nine passengers on board at the time of the check, the second respondent was still in the process of issuing tickets when the check was made at a distance of 3 to 4 furlongs from the place of boarding. Further, as the three ticketless passengers were not in a position to pay the fine, they were shown lenience by the TTIs who only collected penalty of Rs.10/- from each of them. The Labour Court accordingly opined that the punishment imposed upon the second respondent was disproportionate and harsh and scaled it down to reduction of pay by two incremental stages without cumulative effect. The period of suspension undergone by the second respondent was however confirmed to be treated as ‘not on duty’ as spelt out in the punishment order. It is significant to note that no allegation of misappropriation was levelled against the second respondent. He had failed to collect the ticket fare from the three passengers in question and the circumstances put forth by him to justify this failure found favour with the Labour Court. Though, being a Conductor in the service of the APSRTC, the petitioner is under a fiduciary obligation to collect the monies due to the APSRTC and account for the same, his failure to collect the ticket fare from the three passengers by the time of the check cannot be said to reflect upon his integrity. This Court therefore finds no reason to interfere with the conclusion of the Labour Court that the punishment imposed upon the second respondent, given the facts of the case, was harsh and unduly disproportionate. The Writ Petition is devoid of merit and is accordingly dismissed. No costs. -------------------------- SANJAY KUMAR,J 23RD DECEMBER, 2010 PGS/VGSR ( ) THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO.4931 OF 2008 23rd DECEMBER, 2010