THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO.17390 OF 2001 DATED 2ND DECEMBER, 2010 BETWEEN: V.Sridhar … Petitioner And The Presiding Officer of the Labour Court-III, Hyderabad. And Another. … Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO.17390 OF 2001 O R D E R The unsuccessful petitioner in I.D.No.48 of 1996 on the file of the Labour Court-III, Hyderabad, assails the NIL Award dated 16.11.1998 passed therein. The petitioner entered the service of the Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation (APSRTC) as a Conductor in December, 1990. He was subjected to disciplinary proceedings in connection with nine missing blocks of tickets of the value of Rs.2,772.25 ps. under charge sheet dated 23.07.1994. After due enquiry, the APSRTC removed the petitioner from service under proceedings dated 07.12.1994. Relevant to note, the petitioner did not choose to cross-examine the Supervisor who was examined during the enquiry and on the other hand, specifically stated that he did not wish to do so. Further, his written statement dated 21.07.1994 was to the effect that he had sold the nine ticket blocks to make good the bus cash which was lost while he was conducting a bus service. This clinchingly proved the guilt of the petitioner in so far as the charge was concerned. He invoked the jurisdiction of the Labour Court under Section 2-A(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 by way of the subject I.D. mainly on the ground that the amount of Rs.2,772.25 ps. had been recovered from his salary and thus, as there was no loss to the APSRTC, the punishment of removal from service was severe and disproportionate to the misconduct. The Labour Court, upon thorough examination of the material on record, found that the petitioner practically admitted his guilt in respect of the charges and that his conduct throughout clearly demonstrated this. The Labour Court also took note of the fact that the petitioner kept quiet for about five months without bringing it to the notice of the authorities that the ticket blocks had been sold and without remitting the proceeds thereof. In that view of the matter, the finding of the Labour Court that the petitioner was motivated by the objective of swallowing the legitimate revenue of the APSRTC cannot be found fault with. Basing on this opinion, the Labour Court rendered the NIL Award. S ri Y.V.Satyanarayana, learned counsel for the petitioner, fairly submitted that no grounds are available to assail the finding of misconduct held proved by the disciplinary authority and confirmed by the Labour Court. He however contended that as this was the first instance of misconduct alleged against the petitioner, the authorities ought to have taken a more lenient view of the matter. All the more so, as the amount of loss sustained by the APSRTC had been recovered from the petitioner. It is his contention that the Labour Court erred in not exercising jurisdiction under Section 11-A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 in so far as the quantum of punishment was concerned. It is to be noticed that the charge levelled against the petitioner was serious in nature involving misappropriation of a fairly large sum of money. The facts on record clearly manifest that the petitioner, having sold the ticket blocks, be it for whatever reason, failed to remit the proceeds to the APSRTC. His explanation that the said sale was to make good the loss of bus cash is not believable in the light of the fact that he never reported the same earlier. The charge of misappropriation was therefore clearly established. As pointed out by the Supreme Court in REGIONAL MANAGER, UPSRTC v. HOTI LAL[1], a Conductor, standing in a fiduciary capacity, has to discharge his obligations to the Road Transport Corporation with utmost good faith and diligence. Any failure on the part of the Conductor in living upto these standards would warrant severe punishment. The quantum of the amount involved would be irrelevant in such cases. No lenience is therefore called for by any standards. The NIL Award of the Labour Court therefore does not warrant interference on any count. The Writ Petition is devoid of merit and is accordingly dismissed. No costs. -------------------------- SANJAY KUMAR,J 2ND DECEMBER, 2010 PGS/VGSR THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO.17390 OF 2001 2ND DECEMBER, 2010 [1] (2003) 3 SCC 605