THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.CHANDRA KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO.18058 OF 2001 DT.26.11.2010 Between: The Depot Manager, APSRTC., Rapur, Nellore District and another. …………Petitioner Vs. Yellamraju Sudhakar and another ……………..Respondents. O R D E R: This writ petition has been filed challenging the award in I.D.No.82 of 1998, dated 05.12.2000 on the file of the Labour Court, Guntur. Brief facts of the case are as follows: The first respondent was working as Conductor in Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation (for short APSRTC.) While he was conducting bus bearing No.5034 on the route Venkatagiri to Brahmanapalli, a check was conducted by the TTI. They found serious cash and ticket irregularities and issued charge memo on the spot. Then a charge sheet, dated 17.07.1997 was issued and the first respondent was kept under suspension pending enquiry. After receiving his explanation to the charge sheet, as it was found to be not satisfactory, domestic enquiry was ordered. The first respondent also participated in the domestic enquiry. The Enquiry Officer submitted his report on 16.09.1997 holding that the charges leveled against the first respondent were proved. Then the disciplinary authority issued a show cause notice, dated 25.09.1997, seeking explanation from the first respondent as to why he was not liable to be removed from service. After receiving explanation from the first respondent, orders dated 15.10.1997 were passed removing the first respondent from service. Aggrieved by the same, he preferred an appeal and review petitions and as they were not considered, he raised an Industrial Dispute under Section 2-A (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act before the Labour Court, Guntur. The Labour Court, Guntur, having considered the entire material, came to the conclusion that the charge of issuing a ticket with denomination of Rs.5-50ps., bearing No.115/410789, which was already issued in the previous trip is not proved and the findings of the Enquiry Officer are perverse and baseless and accordingly set aside the removal order holding that the first respondent is entitled to be reinstated into service with full back wages and continuity of service. Challenging the same, the present writ petition has been filed. The main contention of Sri G.Venkateswarlu, learned counsel representing the learned Standing Counsel for A.P.S.R.T.C., is that the award of the Labour Court is illegal and though three charges were framed against the first respondent, the Labour Court has considered only charge No.2 and did not discuss about the charges 1 and 3. It is also submitted that the Labour Court failed to see that the version of the passenger examined before the Labour Court is contrary to the spot explanation and therefore, the Labour Court ought not to have relied on the version of the said passenger and ought to have held that all the charges leveled against the first respondent have been proved. It is also his submission that the findings of the Enquiry Officer are perverse and baseless and are not based on any reason. There is no representation for the respondents. The only point that arises for consideration is whether the impugned award is liable to be set aside. The charges leveled against the first respondent are as follows: 1) “For your failure to follow the rule ‘issue and start’ whilst you were conducting the bus No.5034 on the route Venkatagiri to Brahmanapalli on 12.07.1997 which constitutes misconduct under Reg.28(xxxii) of APSRTC (Conduct) Regulations, 1963; 2) For having issued the ticket bearing No.115/410789 of Rs.5.50 den. To a passenger who boarded the bus at Nagavolu and bound for Dakkili (Ex stages 2 to 5) after collecting requisite fare of Rs.3.50 ps. From him which was accounted in the S.R. in 16.20 Hrs. trip of the said service from Vembuluru to Venkatagiri at stage No.2 which leads to reissue of the above said ticket whilst you were conducting the Bus No.5034 on the route Venkatagiri to Brahmanapalli on 12.07.1997 which constitutes misconduct under Reg.28 (vi) (a) of APSRTC Employees’ (Conduct) Regulations, 1963. 3) For closing the S.R. from stage Nos.1 to 5 without completing the above issue whilst you were conducting the Bus No.5034 on the route Venkatagiri to Brahmanapalli on 12.07.1997 which constitutes misconduct under Reg.28 (xxxi) of APSRTC Employees’ (Conduct) Regulations, 1963. Please submit your explanation to the charges leveled against you within seven days from the date of receipt of this charge sheet as t why disciplinary action should not be taken against you failing which it will be assumed that you have no explanation to offer and accepted the charges and further action will be taken against you.” I have read the impugned order and gone through the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner. It is clear that the Labour Court though discussed about Charge No.2, did not discuss about charges 1 and 3. Thus, the findings of the Enquiry Officer on Charges 1 and 3 stand not disturbed by the Labour Court. The Labour Court, however, with regard to charge No.2 seems to have relied on the observations of the Enquiry Officer, who seems to have stated that intention may not be attributed to the Conductor (R-1), since he has issued five tickets of Rs.3-50 denomination from Nagavolu to Deccavolu. It has to be seen that the Enquiry Officer himself observed that no malafide intention could be attributed to the Conductor though charge No.2 is proved. Therefore, the finding of Labour Court on issue No.2 is based on evidence on record and therefore cannot be disturbed. In view of the same, I am not inclined to disturb the finding of the Labour Court with regard to Charge No.2. It appears that by virtue of the interim orders passed by this court, dated 29.08.2001 in W.P.M.P.No.22618 of 2001, the first respondent was reinstated into service and that the petitioners have deposited half of the back wages as per the orders of this Court, dated 30.10.2001in W.P.M.P.No.2757 of 2001. Having regard to the over all facts and circumstances and having regard to the submission that the Labour Court has not disturbed the findings of the Enquiry Officer with regard to charges 1 and 3, it appears that charges 1 and 3 stand proved and in the interest of justice, if half of the back wages are denied to the workman, the same will meet the ends of justice. Accordingly, the award of the Labour Court in I.D.No.82 of 1998, dated 05.12.2000 is modified as follows: The first respondent shall be reinstated into service with half of the back wages and continuity of service. The writ petition is disposed of accordingly. No order as to costs. ___________________ B.CHANDRA KUMAR J., Dt.26.11.2010 tjs