IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE TWELFTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 23977 of 2000 Between: G. Deva Prasad. S/o. G. Thippaiah, R/o. Kadiri, Anantapur District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Preisding Officer, Labour Court, Anantapur, 2 The Depot Manager, APSRTC., Anantapur, .....RESPONDENTS 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 issue an appropriate writ order or direction in the nature of Writ of Certiorari and call for the records relating to an award dated 28-11- 1996, passed in I. D, No. 201/94 on the ﬁle of the Labour Court, Anatapur and the Consequential G.O.Rt. No. 3550 dated 19-12-96 of the Labour Employment Training and Factories (Lab-i) Department, Government of A.P. Hyderabad and quash the same as illegal, arbitrary without jurisdiction and to pass such other order or orders as this Hon'ble Court deems just and necessary in the circumstances of the case. Counsel for the Petitioner:SMT.A.CHAYA DEVI Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR LABOUR The Court made the following : THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No.23977 of 2000 ORDER: This writ petition is ﬁled questioning the award, dated 28.11.1996, passed by the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Anantapur, in I.D.No.201 of 1994. 2. The petitioner was appointed as a Conductor on 26.04.1978 in the 2nd respondent-Corporation. While he was conducting the bus bearing No.AAZ 669 on the route from Anantapur to Rayadurg, a check was exercised by the inspecting oﬃcials at Kadiri, at stage No.3, and on the ground that they have noticed certain cash and ticket irregularities, disciplinary proceedings were initiated and a charge sheet, dated 04.07.1983, was issued. The charges framed against the petitioner read as under: 1. For having failed to observe the rule, issue and start, which constitutes misconduct as per Regulation 28(vi)(a) of APSRTC Employees (Conduct) Regulations, 1963. 2. For having failed to issue ticket to a passenger who boarded your bus at Rananapalli and alighting at Gotukur, ex- stages 2 to3, even after collecting requisite fare from him, which constitutes misconduct as per Regulations 28(vi)(a) of APSRTC Employees (Conduct) Regulations, 1963. 3. For having failed to issue ticket to a passenger who boarded your bus at Anantapur and alighting at Gotukur, ex- stages 1 to 3 even after collecting requisite fare from him which constitutes misconduct as per Regulation 28(vi)(a) of APSRTC Employees (Conduct) Regulations, 1963. 4. For having failed to issue tickets to a batch of two passengers who boarded your bus at Rachanapalli and bound for Bapanapalli, ex-stages 2 to ¾, even after collecting requisite fare from them, which constitutes misconduct as per Regulation 28(vi)(a) of APSRTC Employees (Conduct) Regulations, 1963. 5. For having failed to issue tickets to a batch of four passengers who boarded your bus at Kodimi and bound for Beluguppa, Ex-stages 2/3 to 12, even after collecting requisite fare from them, which constitutes misconduct as per Regulation 28(vi)(a) of APSRTC Employees (Conduct) Regulations, 1963. 6. For having failed to collect the fare and issue ticket to a passenger traveling from Anantapur to Beluguppa ex-stages 1 to 12, which constitutes misconduct as per Regluation 28(vi)(a) of APSRTC Employees (Conduct) Regulations, 1963. 7. For having failed to close the S.R.against stage Nos.2 and 3 even after reaching stage No.3, which constitutes misconduct as per Regulation 28(xxxii) of APSRTC Employees (Conduct) Regulations, 1963.” 3. On 07.07.1983, the petitioner has submitted his explanation, denying the charges. But, however, dissatisfied with the same, a regular enquiry was ordered by appointing an Enquiry Oﬃcer. The Enquiry Oﬃcer, after due enquiry into the matter, held that the petitioner was found guilty of all the charges framed against him. Consequently, on due service of notice, the 2nd respondent has ordered for removal of the petitioner, on 26.10.1983. Though the petitioner has availed the remedies of appeal and review, both the appellate and review authorities, through orders, dated 12.10.1984 and 22.07.1983 respectively, upheld the order of removal. Thereafter, after a lapse of about 9 years, the petitioner has approached the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Anantapur, by way of ﬁling I.D.No.201 of 1994 under Section 29(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1942 (for short ‘the Act’). The Labour Court, on re-appreciation of the entire evidence on record, through its award, dated 29.11.1996, has set aside the order of removal, and directed the 2nd respondent-Corporation to appoint the petitioner as a fresh conductor. After a lapse of nearly four years of passing the said award, the petitioner has come up with this writ petition, seeking further relief. 4. It is submitted by the learned counsel for petitioner that as the petitioner has put in more than 8 years of service, the Labour Court ought to have ordered continuity of service for the purpose of retirement beneﬁts. It is submitted that though there was no material before the enquiry oﬃcer to prove the charges levelled against the petitioner, but he was found guilty in the enquiry proceedings. 5. In this case, it is to be noted that no procedural irregularity is pointed out in conducting the enquiry. On appreciation of the evidence available on record, the Enquiry Oﬃcer has recorded a ﬁnding that the charges framed against the petitioner were proved. In that view of the matter, it cannot be said that the ﬁndings recorded by the Enquiry Oﬃcer are either perverse or illegal. 6. In any event, in this case, it is to be noted that the order of removal was passed as early as on 26.11.1983 and the appeal was dismissed in the year 1984, and further, review was dismissed in 1985, and nearly after a lapse of 9 years, the petitioner has approached the Industrial Tribunal. Though there was no explanation for such abnormal delay and lapses on the part of the petitioner in moving the Industrial Tribunal, but the Tribunal, after taking into account the length of service rendered by the petitioner, and the number of passengers found ticket-less at the time of check etc., through its award, dated 28.11.1996, has ordered for lesser punishment by directing the 2nd respondent to appoint the petitioner as a fresh conductor. Further, even the present Writ Petition is ﬁled by the petitioner belatedly i.e. nearly after 4 years of the award being passed by the Industrial Tribunal. In view of the abnormal delay and laches on the part of the petitioner, and also having regard to the seriousness of the charges, involving misappropriation of money, the petitioner is not entitled for any further relief in this Writ Petition. 7. For the aforesaid reasons, the Writ Petition is devoid of merit and it is accordingly dismissed. No costs. _____________________ R.SUBHASH REDDY, J Dt.12.11.2008 GJ