THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH W.P.NO.2771 OF 2002 O R D E R The petitioner is the workman. Aggrieved by the award dated 28.06.1994 passed by the Industrial Tribunal-cum- Labour Court at Hyderabad in I.D.No.75/1992, in rejecting back wages and imposing the punishment of deferment of one annual increment with cumulative effect and granting only reinstatement with continuity of service, the workman, who is working as conductor in the respondent – Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation, filed the present writ petition. 2. The petitioner was appointed as Conductor in the respondent – Corporation in the year 1986 and on 1.8.1987, his services were regularized. While so, when he was conducting the bus no.AEZ 2535 on route Hanumakonda to Mallareddypally on 29.3.1991, a cheque was conducted at stage no.5 and certain irregularities were found and based on the same, he was issued charge sheet with the following charges: 1. For having failed to observe the rule of completing the ticket issue before arrival of the next fare stage. Which is misconduct under Section 28(xxxii) of APSRTC Employees (Conduct) Regulations, 1963. 2. For having failed to collect the fare and issue tickets to a batch of 10 passengers found traveling without tickets from Aravapally to Molugu – X – Road ex-stage 12 to 5/4 which is a misconduct under Section 28(vi)(a) of APSRTC Employees (Conduct) Regulations 1963. 3. For having failed to close the tray number of all denominations in SR against stage no.8 to 5 without completing the ticket issue to show charge passengers which is a misconduct under Section 28(xxv) of APSRTC Employees (Conduct) Regulations, 1963. 3. The petitioner submitted his explanation to the above charges and not being satisfied with the same, enquiry was conducted and the based on the report of the enquiry officer, the petitioner was removed from service on 29.11.1991. 4. Aggrieved by the removal from service, the petitioner preferred I.D.No.75/1992 on the file of Labour Court and by the impugned award, the petitioner was granted reinstatement with continuity of service, without back wages and he was also imposed punishment of deferment of one annual increment with cumulative effect. Challenging the denial of back wages and imposing the punishment of deferment of one annual increment with cumulative effect, the workman filed the present writ petition. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended that the reason for violation of the rule ‘issue and start’ is that there was a pregnant lady in the bus and all the passengers insisted for starting of the bus and in the meanwhile he could not collect the fare and issue tickets and the Tribunal also categorically found at paragraph no.8 of the award that “the management could not place any relevant material to show that the petitioner herein with any bad motive to gain wrongfully, failed to collect the ticket fares from the passages of charge no.2, so in such circumstances for the misconduct committed by the petitioner, the punishment of removal from service is somewhat harsh and disproportionate.” Therefore, he contended that in view of this finding, the Tribunal is not justified in imposing punishment of withholding one increment with cumulative effect and denying back wages. Therefore, he sought to set aside the said portion of the impugned award and grant the consequential benefits. 6. On the other hand, the learned Standing Counsel for the respondent – Corporation contended that the charges framed against the petitioner were proved beyond doubt in the domestic enquiry and the Tribunal also on re-appreciating the entire material on record found that the charges against the petitioner are proved and while considering the quantum of punishment, having found that the management did not place any relevant material to prove that there was any bad motive to gain wrongfully, granted the reinstatement in exercise of the jurisdiction under Section 11-A of the Act. In fact, as the charges against the petitioner are proved, he is not entitled for reinstatement and the Tribunal is not justified in granting reinstatement. In support of this contention, he relied on the judgment of the Apex Court reported in REGIONAL MANAGER RSRTC v. GHANSHYAM SHARMA[1]. With these contentions, he sought to dismiss the writ petition. 7. From the material on record, it could be seen that the charges against the petitioner are that he failed to comply with the rule ‘issue and start’ and thereby failed to collect and issue tickets to a batch of ten passengers and failed to close the S.R. against stages no.8 to 5. The said charges are proved beyond reasonable doubt and the Tribunal also reappreciating the entire material on record, found that the charges framed against the petitioner are proved beyond doubt. 8. The trial also found at paragraph no.8 while considering issue no.2 that found that “In this case there are altogether 10 passengers found without tickets. Evidently, the petitioner did not collect the fares from any of them. It is also clear from S.R. that he has not closed the S.R. up to stage no.5, the place of check. The management could not place any relevant material to show that the petitioner herein with any bad motive to gain wrongfully, failed to collect the ticket fares from the passengers of charge no.2 so in such circumstances for the misconduct committed by the petitioner the punishment of removal from service is somewhat harsh and disproportionate. As such I feel it is a fit case to invoke Section 11-A of I.D. Act and to set aside the order of removal from service and to direct the respondent to reinstate the petitioner into service without continuity of service, without back wages and to impose the punishment of deferment of (1) one annual increment with cumulative effect.” 9. Therefore, it is clear that charges against the petitioner are proved beyond reasonable doubt and taking the extenuating circumstances and in exercise of the jurisdiction under Section 11-A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, the Tribunal ordered for reinstatement with continuity of service and denied back wages and also imposed punishment of withholding of one annual increment with cumulative effect. In these facts and circumstances, I do not find any justification to interfere with the discretionary jurisdiction exercised by the Tribunal. 10. Further coming to the contention of the standing counsel for the respondent that as the charges are proved, the Tribunal is not justified in granting reinstatement is concerned, it is to be noticed that challenging the award of the Tribunal, the Corporation did not prefer any writ petition before this court and hence the contention cannot be accepted. 11. For the foregoing reasons, I do not find any merit in the writ petition and the same is dismissed. No costs. AVS -------------------- ----------------- 15—12 —2010 [1] (2002)10 SCC 330