THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO WRIT APPEAL NO.1412 OF 2011 ORDER: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice Ghulam Mohammed) The Andhra Pradesh Road Transport Corporation (A.P.S.R.T.C) against the Order rendered in W.P.No.396 of 2005, by a learned Single Judge, has filed this writ appeal. 2. The first respondent was working as a casual Conductor with the A.P.S.R.T.C. On the ground that, he has indulged in cash and ticket irregularities detected during the check made on 17.04.2001 while he was conducting the bus from Bhongir to Mahatma Gandhi Bus Station, he was issued a charge Memo. Dissatisfied with his explanation, the Corporation appointed an Enquiry Officer, who found that the charge leveled against the first respondent was duly proved. Thereafter, termination order dated 30.01.2002 was passed removing the first respondent-workman from service. The first respondent-workman raised an Industrial Dispute I.D.No.28 of 2002 before the Labour Court-III, Hyderabad, under Section 2-A(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The Labour Court deduced that the findings of the Enquiry Officer on the charge were not correct. Basing on the aspects that, the charge framed against the petitioner was not proved, question of reissue of tickets is not established, no mis-conduct is proved and no misappropriation of tickets, the Labour Court set-aside the removal order and directed the Corporation to reinstate the first respondent into service and continuity of service and back wages. However, it was made clear that the period of suspension shall not be counted for any purpose. Challenging the award passed by the Labour Court, W.P.No.396 of 2005 was moved by the Corporation. 3. Entertaining the writ petition, the learned single Judge took note of the fact that the first respondent had already been reinstated in service and accordingly modified the earlier order of stay granted on 20.01.2005 by directing the Corporation to deposit 50% of the back wages payable as per the Award of the Labour Court and permitted the first respondent to withdraw the same without furnishing any security. However, the learned single Judge while concurring with the award of the Labour Court, has pointed out with regard to one aspect that the Labour Court has not disclosed any reason for grant of full back wages to the first respondent. It was also held that, the payment of back wages is no longer an automatic or inevitable consequence upon a direction of reinstatement and that the Labour Court has to weigh various factors in the course of this exercise and cannot mechanically grant or deny back wages. Considering the fact that the first respondent remained out of service of the Corporation till he was reinstated, the learned single Judge directed payment of 50% of the back wages, being the amount already withdrawn by the first respondent, instead of full wages. Thus, the writ petition was partly allowed. Challenging the award passed in the writ petition, the present writ appeal has been preferred. 4. Learned counsel for the Corporation has placed reliance upon the Judgment of this Court rendered in E.H.N. REDDY VS. VICE CHARIMAN AND MANAGING DIRECTOR, APSRTC, HYDERABAD, AND OTHERS[1], contending that the charge leveled against the first respondent was serious in nature and therefore, did not warrant any interference by the Labour Court. 5. We have heard learned counsel for the Corporation and learned counsel for the first respondent. Perused the material available on record. In essence, the misconduct alleged against the Conductor with regard to reissue of tickets was held proved in E.H.N. Reddy’s case. This Court held that such reissue of tickets constitutes a grave misconduct. In the present case, the Labour Court, after a detailed enquiry, came to the conclusion that the charge of reissue of used tickets leveled against the first respondent was not proved. For this reason, E.H.N. Reddy’s case would not be attracted to the proceedings. 4. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case stated supra, we are clearly of the firm opinion that the learned Single Judge has not committed any error and in view of the same the writ appeal is dismissed. No costs. _________________________________ JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED _________________________________​______ JUSTICE NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO sp 29.12.2011 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO WRIT APPEAL NO.1412 OF 2011 29th December, 2011 sp [1] 2006 (6) ALD 682