THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION No.21680 of 1998 Dated 18-01-2008 Between: The Depot Manager, APSRTC, E.G.District. ..... PETITIONER AND The Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Visakhapatnam & others. .....RESPONDENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION No.21680 of 1998 O R D E R: Aggrieved by the award of the Labour Court, Visakhapatnam, in I.D.No.64 of 1994 dated 01-12-1997, the A.P.S.R.T.C. has invoked the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The three charges levelled against the second respondent- workman are as hereunder: 1. For your misbehaviour and insulting the service conductor in presence of the traveling public by uttering words in high pitch, while you were working as driver on Srisailam-Tuni service on 15-09-1992, which constitutes misconduct in terms of the Reg.28 (xviii) (xxi) (xviii) of APSRTC Employees (Conduct) Regulations, 1963. 2. For having collected an amount of Rs.85/- from the passengers @ Rs.2/- each on the plea that HSD Oil will be purchased and topped-up to the vehicle for taking the vehicle in a deviated route i.e. (via) Yarragondapalem and receiving the same from the traveling public, thus tarnishing the image of the Corporation in the public and utilizing the same by you, which amounts to misconduct in terms of Reg. 28(x) of APSRTC Employees’ (Conduct) Regulations, 1963. 3. For your failure to touch Old Bus Stand Tuni on 13- 09-1992 and taken the service vehicle Tuni-Srisailam through ‘Bye’ pass road, thus causing public inconvenience and loss of revenue to the Corporation, which constitutes misconduct in terms of Reg. 28(xvii) of APSRTC Employees’ (Conduct) Regulations, 1963. The Industrial Tribunal held that charge Nos.1 and 3 as not proved. It, however, held charge No.2 to have been established. The Tribunal was of the view that the complicity of the second respondent-workman was far less than that of the other driver in commission of the acts of misconduct, which was a mitigating circumstance and that was not taken into consideration by any of the statutory authorities. The Tribunal, however, held that the second respondent-workman was a party to a heinous mistake of collecting money from the passengers, who were virtually captives in the traffic jam, though ostensibly for speeding up their movement and that the conduct of the driver, who held a position of the trust, was reprehensible. The Tribunal was, however, of the view that in view of the extenuating circumstances, interest of justice would be met if the punishment was modified into one of demotion and directed the petitioner-Corporation to reinstate the second respondent-workman into any post lesser than driver, such as cleaner, without back wages. The Tribunal further directed that the workman be given the benefit of continuity of service. The second charge against the second respondent-workman is of having collected an amount of Rs.85/- from the passengers at Rs.2/- each on the plea that HSD Oil had to be purchased for taking the bus in a deviated route i.e. via Yarragondapalem. This charge having been held to have been proved, it would necessarily mean that the second respondent-workman had taken the bus of the A.P.S.R.T.C. in a different route having collected Rs.2/- from each of the passengers in the bus. While it is no doubt true that the Industrial Tribunal, under Section 11-A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, has the power to modify the punishment even where the act of misconduct is held to have been established, this power is to be exercised not as a matter of course or on grounds of misplaced sympathy. The second respondent, driver in the petitioner-Corporation, had indulged in an act of corruption in having illegally collected Rs.2/- from each of the passengers for taking the bus in a different route. The second respondent-workman had committed acts of misconduct in taking the bus in a route different from the one prescribed and in enriching himself at the cost of the petitioner-Corporation in having collected Rs.2/- each from the passengers in the bus. Exercise of jurisdiction by the Industrial Tribunal, in the facts and circumstances of the present case, is clearly a case of misplaced sympathy. The mere fact that the other driver may have received a bigger share of the cake is of little consequence. Having held that the second respondent, as a driver of the bus, held a position of trust, there was no justification whatsoever for the Industrial Tribunal to interfere with the punishment imposed. The award of the Industrial Tribunal, Visakhapatnam, in I.D.No.64 of 1994 dated 01-12-1997, is quashed. The Writ Petition is accordingly allowed. However, in the circumstances, without costs. ____________ 18-01-2008 usd