IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY SEVENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU WRIT PETITION NO : 25515 of 2000 Between: B.Chinnaiah, S/o. Ramaiah, R/o. H.No. 1-11-15, Near Goal Bungalow, Armoor, Nizamabad District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 Labour Court-II, Rep. by its Presiding Officer, M.J.Road, Hyderabad. 2 A.P. State Road Transport Corporation, Rep. by its Depot Manager, Banswada, Nizamabad District. .....RESPONDENT(S) Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to call for the records from the 1st Respondent and issue an appropriate Writ, Order or Direction, particularly one in the nature of WRIT OF CERTIORARI and quash the award dated 27- 5-2000 passed in I.D. No. 37/97 on the file of the 1st Respondent- Labour Court-II, Hyderabad and consequently grant the relief of reinstatement with continuity of service and all other attendant benefits and grant all consequential benefits. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.A.K.JAYAPRAKASH RAO Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 & 2: MR.M.R.REDDY (SC FOR CBI) The Court made the following : ORDER: This writ petition is filed challenging the award made in I.D.No.37 of 1997 dated 27.5.2000 on the file of the Labour Court-II, Hyderabad. Petitioner is the workman and 2nd respondent is the Management. It appears that the petitioner, while working as Conductor in 2nd respondent-Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation, involved in misconduct of cash and ticket irregularities. Therefore, he was issued with a charge sheet enumerating the following charges: 1.For having issued used tickets bearing Nos.427/391381 to 386 of Rs.2.50 deno.E.6 (which were already sold and accounted by you in the previous trip) from S.S.Reddy to Yellareddy at Gopalpet stage No.13 to 11 Tandur X Road as per the S.R.No.A3/3706402 maintained by you to six individual passengers from Yellareddy stage No.8 to Jangamopally stage No.9/10 duly collecting the requisite fare at the Boarding point itself on the route Yellareddy Rudram; which is serious misconduct in terms of Reg.28 (xxiii) and (vi) (a) of APSRTC Employees (Conduct) Reg.1963. 2.For having issued used tickets bearing Nos.367/171035 to 043 of Rs.2.50 deno. E.9 (which were already sold and accounted by you in the previsous trip as per the SR No.A3/3706402 maintained by you i.e. from 367/171035 to 036 at stage No.14 Madalparthi to Tandur X Road stage No.11 – from 037 to 039 at Stage No.12 Tandur to Shivanagar stage No.9 on the route S.S.Reddy to Yellareddy trip and 040 to 042 on the route Yellareddy to Gopalpet at stage No.9 Sghivanagar stage to 12 stage and 043 at stage No.10 Bollaram X Road to Gopalpet stage No.13) to nice individual passengers duly collecting the requisite fare at the boarding point itself, who boarded the bus at Yellareddy and bound for Rudraram ex-stages 8 to 11 on the route Yellareddy Rudraram; which is serious misconduct in terms of Reg.28 (xxiii) and (vi) (a) of APSRTC Employees (conduct) Reg.1963.” After conducting a detailed enquiry into the said charges, the petitioner was removed from service. Aggrieved thereby, he has filed a petition under Section 2-A (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 before the Labour Court- II, Hyderabad. It is the contention of the petitioner that he never involved in the misconduct alleged against him and it is the passengers who produced false tickets issued in the earlier journey. The passengers might have picked up the tickets from the floor of the bus or retained the old tickets purchased by them in another bus and shown the said tickets to escape their liability to pay fine and he was made a scapegoat. A detailed counter-affidavit has been filed denying the allegations made by the petitioner. No oral evidence was adduced on behalf of both the parties. No documents were marked on behalf of the petitioner. However, on behalf of the 2nd respondent- Management, Exs.M1 to M20 were marked. After a detailed consideration of the entire material and evidence on record, the labour Court held that the enquiry conducted by the Management was valid and the charges framed against the petitioner were proved in full. It also held that the respondent-Management was justified in removing the petitioner from service and the petitioner is not entitled for any relief, thus dismissed the petition.. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner filed the present writ petition. Sri A.K.Jaya Prakash Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner strenuously contended that the passengers have boarded the bus at the intermittent stage and when check had taken place, the petitioner was not keeping good health and the passengers gave a statement that the tickets that they were holding were issued by the petitioner, which is not true and correct. The petitioner never issued such tickets and he was made a scapegoat and was removed from service. The Labour Court has not properly appreciated the entire evidence and came to an erroneous conclusion that the charges are proved and the petitioner does not deserve any relief as sought for. The labour Court at least ought to have taken into consideration the past service of the petitioner while exercising its powers under Section 11-A of the Act and granted some relief viz., lesser punishment or fresh appoint etc., and not granting any relief to the petitioner is arbitrary and illegal. Learned counsel for the respondent contented that this is a case of re-issuance of tickets and the charges are proved and the petitioner has not made out any case calling for interference of this Court. I have given my earnest consideration to the respective submissions made by the learned counsel on either side and perused the other material made available on record. This is a case where the petitioner has allowed as many as 15 passengers into the bus and they were found in possession of tickets which are not relevant and which were found to have been already issued in the earlier journey. Thus, the petitioner has committed misconduct of re-issuance of tickets. The misconduct of re-issuance of tickets cannot be taken very leniently. I am of the opinion that the labour Court, after an elaborate consideration of the entire evidence on record, has rightly came to the conclusion that the enquiry was properly conducted and the petitioner deserve the punishment of removal from service. Learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon the judgment reported in S.Pulla Rddy v. Depot Manager, APSRTC, Kadapa[1] whereunder, while considering the case on its own merits, the impugned order was set aside and the management was directed to reinstate the workman into service without back wages and without continuity of service. The facts in the instant case stand on a different footing. In the present case, as many as 15 passengers were found with re-issued tickets. Therefore, the proposition laid down in the said case (1 surpa) cannot be applied to this case. Further, the labour Court has not committed any error in not invoking its powers under Section 11-A of the Act as contended by the petitioner. This is a case where the management could not have imposed any lesser punishment than that of punishment of dismissal from service. Writ petition is devoid of merits and is liable to be dismissed. Writ petition is accordingly dismissed. No costs. __________ 27.2.2008 rkk ..... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1 Labour Court-II, Rep. by its Presiding Officer, M.J.Road, Hyderabad. 2 A.P. State Road Transport Corporation, Rep. by its Depot Manager, Banswada, Nizamabad District. 3.2CD copies [1] 1997 (2) ALD page 558