THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. RAMULU WRIT PETITION No.18228 OF 2000 DATED: 06.02.2008 Between: M. Venkaiah .. Petitioner And The Depot Manager, A.P.S.R.T.C., Jangaon Depot, Warangal District and another. .. Respondents THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. RAMULU WRIT PETITION No.18228 OF 2000 ORDER: This writ petition is filed challenging the award, dated 04.03.1991, made in I.D.No.114 of 1988, on the file of the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Warangal, insofar as denying continuity of service and all other consequential benefits to the petitioner by ordering fresh appointment as cleaner or sweeper. Petitioner is the workman and 1st respondent is the management. It appears, the petitioner, while working as Conductor in A.P. State Road Transport Corporation at Jangaon Bus Depot, Warangal District, was found to have committed some cash and ticket irregularities, while conducting bus on the route Annaram to Hyderabad on 18.07.1987. Therefore, he was issued with a charge sheet enumerating the following charges: “a) The petitioner did not observe the Rule Issue and Start. b) The petitioner having collected the fare of 1 Rupee from 3 passengers traveling from Thirumalagiri to Mondurai Ex- stages 30 to 29 did not issue tickets to them and they were found alighting at stage No.29. c) The checking officials detected that the petitioner did not collect the fare and issue tickets to a batch of 6 passengers who were traveling from Midhan Cheru Tanda to Thatipanula Ex-stages 30/29 to 28 and further alleged that the petitioner closed the ticket numbers of all denomination up to the point of check of stage No.29.” After a detailed enquiry was conducted into the said charges, the disciplinary authority, vide proceedings dated 15.12.1987, removed the petitioner from service. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner raised a dispute, being I.D.No.114 of 1988, under Section 2-A (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short ‘the I.D. Act’), before the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court at Warangal. The Labour Court, after detailed consideration of the matter, came to the conclusion that the petitioner was guilty of all the charges framed against him and held that inasmuch as the petitioner was removed from service for two times for having involved in cash and ticket irregularities, it would not be safe to entrust to him any duty connected with dealing of the revenues of the Corporation. However, keeping in view the fact that he served the Corporation for a period of about seven years, the Labour Court, while exercising its powers under Section 11-A of the I.D. Act, passed the impugned award directing the Corporation to appoint the petitioner afresh either as a Cleaner or a Sweeper. Thereby, the petitioner was denied continuity of service, backwages and other attendant benefits and also lowered in rank. Hence, this writ petition. Now, it is brought to the notice of this Court that, pursuant to the award of the Labour Court, the petitioner was appointed as Cleaner and subsequently promoted as Tracer. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the Labour Court, while exercising its powers under Section 11-A of the I.D. Act, ought to have ordered either reinstatement of the petitioner with continuity of service, but without backwages, or reinstatement of the petitioner afresh as Conductor. Instead of that, the Labour Court directed the management to appoint the petitioner afresh either as Cleaner or Sweeper, which is arbitrary and illegal. Heard both sides. Perused the impugned award and other material made available on record. In fact, the petitioner not only involved in the cash and ticket irregularities alleged in the instant case, but also involved in similar irregularities earlier in the year 1983 and was removed from service by the disciplinary authority. However, the review authority, on a review petition filed by the petitioner, ordered reinstatement of the petitioner as Conductor afresh, without continuity of service and backwages. The Labour Court, keeping in view the said past misconduct, ordered reinstatement afresh as Cleaner or Sweeper, in order to keep him away from the revenue matters of the Corporation. In fact, though the charges are proved and the past conduct of the petitioner was found to be not clean, the Labour Court has taken a lenient view and granted the relief of fresh appointment as Cleaner of Sweeper. Strictly speaking, the petitioner is not entitled to any relief much less the one granted by the Labour Court. Under those circumstances, I am of the opinion that the Labour Court has not committed any error calling for interference of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Be that as it may, the writ petition is filed after a lapse of more than nine years from the date of passing of the impugned award. On this ground alone, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed. Thus, the writ petition is devoid of merits and is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. _________________ JUSTICE C.V. RAMULU 6th February, 2008. IBL