THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU WRIT PETITION No :1862 of 2006 DATED:15-02-2011 Between: I.R.Chandraiah. … PETITIONER And The Honourable Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Rep.by its Presiding Officer, Warangal & 3 others. ... RESPONDENTS ORDER: This Writ Petition is directed against the award, dated 21-02-2005, made in I.D.No.115 of 2002 on the file of the learned Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Warangal, wherein the application filed by the petitioner under Section 2-A(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act ( for brevity, ‘the Act’) to set aside the removal order passed on 25-02-2002, was dismissed. 2. It appears, petitioner was appointed as a driver in the respondent corporation in the year, 1996. That being so, on 10-03-2001, when the petitioner was driving the bus bearing No.8641 on route Manuguru to Khammam, a check was conducted at stage No.25 at about 2.45 p.m. and certain irregularities were noticed and a charge sheet, dated 24-03-2001, was issued to the petitioner with the following charges: (a) For having failed to sit on the drivers seat before steering at bus station, Khammam, which is misconduct under Reg.No.28 (xxxii) of APSTTC Employees (Conduct) Regulations, 1963” (b) For having collected an amount of Rs.20/- from a passenger who boarded your bus at stage No.1 Manuguru along with luggage (wooden gorru) and found alighting at Khammam. At the time of checking the TTIs asked to the passengers about the luggage tickets, the passenger says as per the advice of the conductor the passenger has given Rs.20/- to the petitioner. The petitioner had collected that luggage amount from the passenger. But he has not say the collected luggage amount of Rs.20/- to the conductor. Then the TTIs issued luggage tickets of Rs.20/- to the conductor. Then the TTIs issued luggage tickets of Rs.3/- deno., as IPI and remaining amount of Rs.17/- was returned to the passenger, due to which loss of legitimate revenues to the corporation and causing much inconvenience to the travelling public, which is a serious misconduct under Reg.No.28 (xxxi) (xxxii) of APSRTC Employees (conduct) Regulations, 1963”. 3. After conducting a detailed enquiry into the matter and following the procedure, petitioner was removed from service by the disciplinary authority by order, dated 08-08-2001. Aggrieved thereby, he filed an appeal and the same was dismissed on 03-12-2001. Further, on filing review before the Regional Manager, the same was considered and disposed of on 25-02-2008, directing reinstatement of the petitioner afresh and denying all other benefits like continuity of service, back wages and attendant benefits. Aggrieved thereby, petitioner raised a dispute under Section 2-A(2) of the Act before the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Warangal, and the learned Judge dismissed the same. Hence, the present Writ Petition. 4. It was the case of the petitioner that the enquiry was not properly conducted and the charge was not so grave, requiring removal from service or denying the other service benefits, as was done by the review authority. The punishment of denying continuity of service, attendant benefits and back wages is arbitrary and illegal. Respondent management filed a detailed counter, denying the allegations made by the petitioner and supported the removal order passed by the review authority reinstating the petitioner afresh as driver. It is stated that the Labour Court on a detailed consideration of the material placed before it felt that there are no grounds and thus dismissed the petition filed by the petitioner under Section 2-A (2) of the Act and that there are no merits in this Writ Petition. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner strenuously contended that the petitioner was denied five years of continuous service, attendant benefits and also back wages for a trivial charge of this nature. The sum and substance of the charge was that at the time of the said check, a gorru was placed on the top of the bus without issuing luggage ticket. In fact, after noticing that the gorru was not issued with a luggage ticket, the conductor issued ticket and the same was regularized. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the driver can never be made responsible for non-issuance of ticket against any luggage being carried by the bus. It is purely the duty of the conductor and it is thus his realm and the petitioner, as a driver, has nothing to do with the issuance of luggage tickets or collecting luggage fee etc. Therefore, removal order passed by the respondent management or modifying such an order of removal to that of reinstatement by the Regional Manager, denying the continuity of service, attendant benefits and back wages, is arbitrary and illegal. The Labour Court has not exercised the powers vested in it under Section 119 of the Act for the purpose of granting proper relief to the petitioner. 6. Learned counsel for the respondents supported the award passed by the Labour Court and stated that the petitioner ought to have felt satisfied that the review authority has given some relief of reinstatement, though the charge being grave in nature, so that he could work and get salary and eke out his livelihood. Though it is the duty of the conductor, the driver intervened and collected the luggage fee from the person who was carrying the gorru and did not permit the conductor to issue ticket. He, therefore, states that the Writ Petition is devoid of merits and is liable to be dismissed. 7. I have given my earnest consideration to the respective submissions made by the learned counsel on either side and perused the impugned order and other material available on record. May be the petitioner is not liable for the charge of cash and ticket irregularities, but in spite of there being a conductor available in the bus, the petitioner-driver has collected Rs.20/- from the person who was carrying the gorru and therefore made himself liable for the charge. May be the conductor had issued tickets after check was held by the checking officials, but that itself does not mean that the petitioner can be absolved of the charge. I am of the opinion that in a case of this nature, the approach made by the review authority as well as the Labour Court is pedantic. The past conduct of the petitioner was clean and unblemished and the nature of the allegations made against the driver was not within his duties. Under those circumstances, denying the continuity of service and appointing the petitioner afresh is shockingly disproportionate to that of the misconduct alleged against the petitioner. In the overall circumstances, I am of the opinion that the review authority ought to have passed an order reinstating the petitioner into service with continuity of service, but without back wages and other attendant benefits. Instead of doing that, fresh appointment was ordered for the trivial charge, which was committed for the first time in spite of clean service of five years held by the petitioner. Therefore, the award of the Labour Court is liable to be modified. Respondent management is directed to reinstate the petitioner into service with continuity of service, but without any back wages and attendant benefits. 8. Accordingly, Writ Petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. ________________ C.V.RAMULU,J 15th February, 2011. Tsy