IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE TENTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION NO :1648 of 1999 Between: V.Ram Mohan Rao, S/o. Veeraiah, R/o. Gudivada, Krishna Dist. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Guntur. 2 The Depot Manager, APSRTC, Avanigadda Depot, Avanigadda P.O. Krishna District. 3 THe Chairman & Managing Director, APSRTC Musheerabad, RTC Cross Rd., Hyderabad. .....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 writ, direction and order particularly one in the nature of certiorari and call for the records from the first respondent i.e. the presiding officer, labour Court, Guntur in I.D.No. 250/94 orders dated 8-3-1996 and set aside the order to an extent of not granting back wages and grant back wages from the date of termination in the date of reinstatement. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.G.V.V.A.PRASANNAM Counsel for Respondent No.1: GP FOR LABOUR Counsel for Respondents 2 & 3: C. PRAKASH REDDY, (SC FOR APSRTC) The Court made the following : O R D E R: The petitioner, who is working as a Conductor in the Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation (for short “the Corporation”), has filed this writ petition questioning the award passed by the Labour Court in I.D.No.250 of 1994 to the extent of not granting back wages while ordering reinstatement of the petitioner with continuity of service. The petitioner was appointed as Conductor in the respondent- Corporation. On 12-01-1990 while he was conducting the bus on the route Gudiwada to Avanigadda, a check was conducted at stage No.10/11 by the inspecting officials. During that check, having noticed certain irregularities alleged to have been committed by the petitioner-Conductor, departmental proceedings were initiated against him and after preliminary enquiry, charge sheet was issued to him, wherein the following charges were framed- 1. For having collected the requisite fare of Re.1/- from a passenger who found alighting at Kapthanupalem without ticket which constitutes misconduct under Reg(x) of APSRTC Employees (Conduct) Reg.1963. 2. For having issued unpunched tickets of Rs.1/-den to a batch of two passengers and a batch of three passengers who boarded the bus at Challapalli and bound for Pedaprolu i.e., ex-stages 10 to 11 which constitutes misconduct under Reg.28 (xxxii) of APSRTC employees (Conduct) Reg.1963. 3. For having refused to acknowledge the statements and the charge memo and refused to sign on MTD 43/E No.3558844 and creates nuisance at the time of check which constitute misconduct under Reg.28 (viii) of APSRTC Employees (Conduct) Reg.1963.” After conducting a detailed enquiry, while holding that all the charges levelled against the petitioner were proved, an order of removal was passed against him. The said order of removal was challenged by the petitioner by raising an industrial dispute under Section 2-A (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short “the Act”) which was registered as I.D.No.250 of 1994 before the Labour Court. The Labour Court by the impugned award held that all the charges framed against the petitioner were proved, but however considering his past service and having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, it ordered reinstatement of the petitioner with continuity of service but without back wages. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the financial irregularity relates to only charge Nos.1 and 2 and that too there was an allegation of misappropriation of Re.1/- only on each charge. It is further contended that during the departmental proceedings no statement of the passenger was recorded hence, the enquiry itself was vitiated. On the other hand, it is contended by the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents that the Labour Court found that the charges framed against the petitioner were proved, but it ordered reinstatement of the petitioner while exercising its discretion under Section 11-A of the Act. He further contended that the quantum of amount is not the criteria and as the petitioner was appointed as a Conductor, his primary duty is to collect the fare and issue tickets in a fair manner and as such the award passed by the Labour Court is just and fair and there are no grounds for interference by this Court. Though three charges were framed against the petitioner in the departmental proceedings, only two charges relate to misconduct. On the first charge the allegation was that having collected the requisite fare of Re.1/- from the passenger, the petitioner did not issue ticket to the said passenger and on the second charge, the allegation was that though he issued tickets, but he did not punch the same. From these two charges, it is clear that there was misconduct on the part of the petitioner while discharging his duty. It is to be noted that the quantum of misappropriation hardly makes any difference having regard to the nature of the duties, which are entrusted to a Conductor in a Corporation. Though it is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the passengers were not examined during the departmental proceedings, but however it has to be seen that at the spot, the statements of the passengers were recorded and those statements were also relied on by the Enquiry Officer. Non- examination of the passengers after initiation of the departmental proceedings would not vitiate the enquiry conducted by the Corporation. Although the Labour Court found that the charges framed against the petitioner were proved, but it, while exercising its discretion under Section 11-A of the Act, ordered reinstatement of the petitioner with continuity of service, however, without back wages. In this view of the matter, I do not see any ground to interfere with the impugned award. The writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed. No costs. ____________________ R.SUBHASH REDDY, J Dated 10th June, 2008 vrn ..... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1 The Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Guntur. 2 The Depot Manager, APSRTC, Avanigadda Depot, Avanigadda P.O. Krishna District. 3 The Chairman & Managing Director, APSRTC Musheerabad, RTC Cross Road., Hyderabad. 4 The Government Pleader for Labour, High Court Buildings, Hyderabad. (OUT) 5 2CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WP{ESWAR}