HON’BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE SRI GHULAM MOHAMMED AND HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOOTY RAMA MOHANA RAO W.A.No.56 of 2011 JUDGMENT (Per Sri Ghulam Mohammed, ACJ) This writ appeal is directed against the order dated 19.11.2010 passed by the learned Judge of this Court in W.P.No.20703 of 2008. 2. The brief facts are that the first respondent (deceased) while working as Conductor in the appellant-APSRTC was suspended from service on 02.12.2005 on the ground of certain cash and ticket irregularities. Thereafter, he was issued with a charge memo dated 24.11.2005 with the following charges: 1. For having failed to observe the rule ‘issue and start’ at stage No.8 Mannanoor, which constitutes misconduct under Reg.28(vi-a) of APSRTC Employees (Conduct) Regulations, 1963. 2. For having reissued the tickets bearing NO.355/687930 and 355/687944 of Rs.10/- denomination to a batch of two passengers who boarded the bus at Mannanoor and bound for Wankeswaram ex.stages 08 to 05 while performing 09.00 hours DVK-MCL-MMD N/o.Exp. Service on 24.11.2005 which were already issued on the same day at stage No.21 Macherla and at stage NO.14 Devarakonda and accounted in STAR document NO.029/806062, which constitutes misconduct under Reg.28(xxiii) of APSRTC Employees (Conduct) Regulations, 1963. 3. For having closed the tray numbers of all denomination upto stage No.6 without completing the ticket issues correctly, which constitutes misconduct under Eg.28(xxxii) of APSRTC Employees(Conduct) Regulations 1963. Though the first respondent submitted his explanation, dissatisfied with the same, the appellant Corporation conducted a detailed enquiry and finally, removed him from service vide proceedings dated 22.05.2006. His appeal as well as review was rejected on 12.10.2006 and 02.02.2007 respectively. He raised I.D.No.33 of 2007 before the Labour Court-III Hyderabad, which in turn dismissed the same through its NIL award dated 03.04.2008. Thereafter, the first respondent died on 31.07.2008, a day after the publication of the award. His legal representatives i.e., respondent Nos.2 to 4 were constrained to file W.P.No.20703 of 2008 seeking to set aside the award passed by the Labour Court. Through the impugned order, the learned Judge while observing that denial of 50% backwages for the period that the workman remained out of service would be sufficient punishment for the misconduct alleged and proven charges 1 and 3, set aside the award passed in I.D., with a direction to the Corporation to compute the terminal benefits due and payable to the workman taking into account the full service rendered by him, including the period from 02.12.2005 up to the date of his death, however, denied 50% of the backwages due for that period and subject thereto, the said period shall be counted for all other purposes while computing the benefits due to the workman. The learned Judge also directed that the amount due and payable to the workman shall be paid to respondent Nos.2 to 4, within a period not later than two months from the date of receipt of a copy of the order. Aggrieved by the same, the Corporation filed the present appeal. 3. Heard Sri C. Sunil Kumar Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for the appellant Corporation and Sri V. Narasimha Goud, learned counsel for the respondents. 4. Learned Standing Counsel for the appellant Corporation contended that the learned Judge ought not to have granted 50% backwages while setting aside the NIL award passed by the Labour Court. 5. We have perused the order impugned, wherein the learned Judge has given cogent and convincing reasons by following the judgment of the Supreme Court in J.K.SYNTHETICS LTD., v. K.P.AGRAWAL[1]. In the circumstances, we do not find any infirmity in it warranting interference by this Court. The writ appeal fails and is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. __________________________ GHULAM MOHAMMED, ACJ _________________________ NOOTY RAMA MOHANA RAO, J Date:03.11.2011 sj [1] (2007) 2 SCC 433