THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. RAMULU WRIT PETITION No.8643 OF 2000 DATED: 13.02.2008 Between: A.P.S.R.T.C. rep. by its Depot Manager Warangal-II. .. Petitioner And P. Bagaiah .. Respondent THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU WRIT PETITION No.8643 OF 2000 ORDER: This writ petition is filed challenging the award, dated 05.11.1999, made by the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court at Warangal in I.D.No.244 of 1995. Petitioner is the management and respondent is the workman. It appears, while the respondent, who was working as Conductor in A.P. State Road Transport Corporation at Warangal-2 Bus Depot, was conducting a bus on 11.11.1992, on the route Warangal-Gajwel, a check was exercised by the checking officials at stages 25/24 and certain cash and ticket irregularities alleged to have been committed by the respondent were found. Thereupon, he was issued with a charge sheet enumerating the following charges: 1) For having failed to observe the rule ‘Issue and Start’ which amounts to misconduct U/R 28 (xxxii) of A.P.S.R.T.C. Employees (Conduct) Regulations 1963. 2) For having failed to issue tickets to 15 passengers in batches and individuals (6+4+4+1) in spite of collecting requisite fare of Rs.1.50 ps. each (i.e. total amount of Rs.22.50 at their boarding place 25/24 Miranjipally) who are about to alight at stage No.24 (Komuravelli) which amounts to misconduct U/R 28 (vi) (a) of A.P.S.R.T.C. Employees (Conduct) Regulations 1963. After conducting a detailed enquiry into the matter, the disciplinary authority passed an order on 24.02.1993 removing the respondent from service. Aggrieved thereby, he raised a dispute, being I.D.No.244 of 1995, under Section 2-A (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short ‘the I.D. Act’) before the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Warangal. It was the case of the workman before the Labour Court that neither there is any basis for framing the charges nor the charges are proved. The enquiry was not properly conducted, the findings of the enquiry officer were contrary to the evidence on record and the disciplinary authority erred in accepting the said findings. Even assuming that there is some misconduct on his part, imposing a punishment of removal from service is shockingly disproportionate to that of the misconduct alleged. A detailed counter-affidavit has been filed by the management denying the allegations made by the workman and it was further asserted that the charges proved are grave in nature, for which the punishment of removal from service alone could be reasonable. Before the Labour Court, no oral or documentary evidence was adduced on either side. The Labour Court, on the basis of the record placed before it, held that the enquiry conducted by the management was just, proper and valid, and that charge No.1 was only proved but not the charge No.2 and, hence, the punishment of removal from service was shockingly disproportionate to that of the misconduct proved. Accordingly, an award was passed setting aside the order of removal and directing the management to reinstate the workman into service with backwages and continuity of service. However, in order to impose a lesser punishment on the workman, the management was directed to recover Rs.500/- per month from him for a period of twelve months, after his reinstatement. Aggrieved thereby, the management filed this writ petition. Smt P. Rajani Reddy, learned counsel for the management, strenuously contended that the findings recorded by the Labour Court are perverse and contrary to the evidence on record. The Labour Court failed to observe that this is not a case where the Conductor, having collected fare from one passenger or one set of passengers, failed to issue tickets to them; but this is a case where the Conductor, having collected fare from as many as three sets of passengers (6+4+4) and one individual, failed to issue tickets to them. The intention on the part of the workman is very clear that he wanted to defraud the revenues of the Corporation. Under such circumstances, absolutely, there was no ground to interfere into the removal order passed by the disciplinary authority. Therefore, the award passed by the Labour Court is liable to be set aside. Per contra, Smt S.A.V. Ratnam, learned counsel for the workman, contended that the Labour Court, after detailed consideration of the matter, rightly held that charge No.2 is not proved. In fact, there was no time for the workman to issue tickets to the alleged 15 passengers, who boarded the bus at Stage 25/24 and were about to alight at Stage No.24, due to some altercation took place between them, and in the meanwhile the check was exercised between stages 25/24. Hence, it was rightly held by the Labour Court that the punishment of removal from service is disproportionate to that of the misconduct and, as such, directed reinstatement of the workman with continuity of service and backwages. The award passed by the Labour Court does not call for any interference of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The writ petition is devoid of merits and is liable to be dismissed. I have given my earnest consideration to the respective submissions made by the learned counsel on either side and perused the impugned award and other material made available on record. It appears, the charges are not as simple as contended by the learned counsel for the respondent nor are they innocuous. The charges are that the workman failed to follow the rule ‘issue and start’ and failed to issue tickets to as many as 15 passengers, having collected money from them. It is not that those 15 passengers boarded the bus as a group and one person has paid the total fare. They are of three different batches (6+4+4) and one individual. It is not the case of the workman that all the passengers have picked up a quarrel with him. One passenger representing a batch of four passengers was examined before the enquiry officer to say that there was some altercation between them and the Conductor, on account of which it was not possible for the Conductor to issue tickets, though collected the money. The Labour Court erred in accepting this version of the said passenger. May be some altercation took place between one set of passengers and the workman and as such he could not issue tickets to them, but that does not mean that due to the said altercation, he was unable to issue tickets to the remaining 11 passengers also and, hence, there was no misconduct on his part. When the respondent- workman had collected fare from four batches of passengers, he was supposed to issue tickets to one batch immediately and then to the next batch. But he failed to do so. Thus, the intention of the workman can be inferred to be not fair and was only to defraud the revenues of the Corporation. Under those circumstances, I am of the opinion that the Labour Court was not right in awarding reinstatement with backwages and continuity of service, and it has not exercised its powers under Section 11-A of the I.D. Act in a proper way, while passing the impugned award. Therefore, it would be just and proper to modify the impugned award by denying backwages to the workman. For all the above reasons, the impugned award, dated 05.11.1999, passed in I.D.No.244 of 1995, is modified as under: “The management is directed to reinstate the workman into service with continuity of service and attendant benefits, but without any backwages. However, the punishment of recovery of Rs.500/- per month for a period of twelve months is confirmed.” With the above modification, the writ petition is disposed of. No order as to costs. _________________ JUSTICE C.V. RAMULU 13th February, 2008. IBL