IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE SECOND DAY OF APRIL, TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION NO : 7992 of 1998 Between: The Depot Manager,A.P.S.R.T.C., Achampet Depot, Mahaboobnagar Dist. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Labour Court-III, Hyderabad, rep.by it's Presiding Officer, 2 G.Krishnaiah, C/o. Sri Ch.Indrasena Reddy,Advocate, H.No.1-1-113/3/3, R.T.C. X Roads, 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 may be pleased to issue a writ or order or direction particularly one in the nature of Writ of Certiorari and call for the records relating to and in connection with the award dt.4-7-97 passed in I.D.No.125/95 on the file of the Labour Court-III, Hyderabad (Respondent No.1) which was published in the Gazette vide G.O.Rt.No.20, dt.3.1.98 and quash the same as illegal, arbitrary and without jurisdiction and to pass such other order or orders just and necessary in the circumstances of the case. Counsel for the Petitioner:SMT.B.G.UMA DEVI, S.C. FOR APSRTC. Counsel for the Respondents: MR.P.SRIDHAR RAO, G.P.FOR LABOUR The Court made the following : THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION No.7992 of 1998 ORDER: Aggrieved by the award of the Labour Court-III, Hyderabad in I.D.No.125 of 1995 dated 04.07.1997, the present writ petition is filed by the Depot Manager, A.P.S.R.T.C., Achampet Depot, Mahaboobnagar District. The second respondent, a Conductor in A.P.S.R.T.C., was charged of having committed certain irregularities on a spot check being conducted on the bus. A charge memo dated 06.11.1992 was issued wherein the following charges were framed:- “1. For having failed to observe the rule Issue & Start which constitutes misconduct under Reg.28 (xxxii) of APSRTC Employees (Conduct) Regulations 1963. 2. For having issued invalid tickets to four passengers traveling with tickets bearing No: 382/659464 to 466 and 659480 of Rs.3/- den. who boarded his bus at Hajeepur and bound for Bommanapalli Ex-Stages 3 to 7 which constitutes misconduct under Reg.28 (xxiii) of APSRTC Employees (conduct) Reg. 1963. 3. For having issued invalid tickets to two passengers traveling with ticket bearing Nos.133/048382 and 383 of Rs.3-75 ps. deno. who boarded his bus at Mannanoor X Road to Siddapur Ex-Stages 4/5 to 9, which constitutes misconduct under Reg.28(xxiii) of APSRTC Employees (conduct) Reg.1963. 4. For having issued invalid tickets to two passengers traveling with ticket bearing Nos.133/048381 and 384 of Rs.3-75 ps. den. who boarded his bus at Adipur X Road to Siddpur, which constitutes misconduct under Reg. 28 (xxiii) of APSRTC Employees (conduct) Reg. 1963. 5 . For having closed the tray Nos. of all dens. upto stage No.6 without completing the above ticket issues, which constitutes misconduct under Reg.28(xxxii) of APSRTC Employees (conduct) Reg. 1963.” On the enquiry Officer holding all the five charges to have been held established, the disciplinary authority, by order dated 25.05.1993, imposed on the workman the punishment of removal from service. The order of disciplinary authority was confirmed even by the appellate and reviewing authorities on 19.02.1994 and 01.03.1995 respectively. Aggrieved thereby the second respondent invoked the jurisdiction of the Labour Court in I.D.No.125 of 1995 under Section 2-A(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act. Before the Labour Court, no oral evidence was adduced on either side. While the workman did not choose to produce any documentary evidence, the management marked Exs.M1 to M25 with consent. Exercising its jurisdiction under Section 11-A of the Industrial Disputes Act (hereinafter referred to as “the I.D.Act”) while re-appreciating the evidence on record, the Labour Court held that the contradictory versions of the second respondent, from stage to stage, belied his version and that the finding of guilt become unassailable and did not permit any interference. Having so held, the Labour Court interfered with the quantum of punishment and observed that in view of the long standing service of the workman, the nature of the charges, the defence and the amount involved, the order of removal was unjust and not commensurate with the gravity of the charges found against him and that the removal order was liable to be set aside and thereby the 2nd respondent was directed to be reinstated into service with all attendant benefits such as continuity of service etc., but without any backwages. Before this Court, Smt. B.G.Uma Devi, learned Standing Counsel for the petitioner, points out that the charges held established against the second respondent include his having issued invalid tickets (tickets which had already been issued earlier), and that charges 2,3 and 4 related to such issue of invalid tickets. Learned counsel would submit that the Labour Court, having held that the charges were established in effect, meant that the 2nd respondent had misappropriated the funds of the Corporation without accounting for the passengers traveling in the bus and that the Labour Court ought not to have interfered with the punishment imposed by the management. The conductors of the APSRTC work in a fiduciary capacity. I n Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation v. B.S.Hullikatti, the Supreme Court observed that it was the responsibility of bus conductor to collect correct fares from the passengers and deposit the same in the Corporation, that conductors act in a fiduciary capacity, that it would be gross misconduct if, knowingly, they did not collect any fare or the correct amount of fare and that, in such cases, interference with the punishment of dismissal from service was a case of misplaced sympathy by the Labour Court. In Regional Manager, Rajastan State Road Transport Corporation v. Ghanshyam Sharma, the Supreme Court held that the proved acts amounted either to a case of dishonesty or of gross negligence and bus conductors, who by their actions or inactions, caused financial loss to the Corporation, were not fit to be retained in service. In V.Ramana v. A.P.S.R.T.C., the Supreme Court held that Courts/Tribunals should not interfere unless the punishment imposed by the disciplinary authority or the appellate authority shocks the conscience of the Court/Tribunal. While the Labour Court has jurisdiction under Section 11-A of the I.D. Act to interfere with the quantum of punishment, however, such interference cannot be as a matter of course or on grounds of misplaced sympathy. The mere fact that the 2nd respondent had rendered service for a considerable length of time would not justify a lenient view being taken when the charges held established are of corruption. No employee who has indulged in acts of corruption can be leniently dealt with. Exercise of discretion by the Labour Court, with regards substitution of the punishment imposed by the employer is, therefore, liable to be set aside. Since, however, it is not for this Court to substitute the punishment imposed by the Labour Court with another, it is but appropriate that the matter is remanded back to the Labour Court only to examine the quantum of punishment. It is made clear that the Labour Court’s conclusions, with regards the charges having been held established, will remain in force, since the workman has not chosen to challenge the said award. The Labour Court shall examine the quantum of punishment, in exercise of jurisdiction under Section 11-A of the I.D. Act, after hearing both parties. Since the dispute relates to the year 1995, and nearly 13 years have elapsed since then, it is but appropriate that the Labour Court decides the matter expeditiously, in any event, not later than four months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Needless to state that till the Labour Court considers the matter afresh and passes an award in accordance with law, status quo as on today shall be maintained. The writ petition is disposed of accordingly. No costs. ______________________ RAMESH RANGANATHAN,J 2nd April, 2008 v v To 1 The Presiding Officer, The Labour Court-III, Hyderabad, 2 Two CCs to 3 Two CD copies.