IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE THIRTEENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU WRIT PETITION NO : 10267 of 2000 Between: P.Pratap Reddy, S/o.Thomos Reddy, R/o.Panigiri Thirumalagiri Mandal, Nalgonda District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Depot Manger, A.P.S.R.T.C., Hanamkonda Depot, Warangal District. 2 Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Warangal. .....RESPONDENT(S) Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to to issue a suitable Writ order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Certiorary or otherwise calling for the records and set aside the award passed in I.D.No.77/92 on the file of the Industrial Tribunal, Warangal in so far it has gone against the petitioner in not awarding backwages, and imposed the punishment of deferment of (3) three annual increments and that the seniority should be reduced by 5 (five) places in the seniority list and pass such other order or orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. Counsel for the Petitioner:SMT.S.A.V.RATNAM Counsel for the Respondent No.: SMT.P.RAJANI REDDY The Court made the following : ORAL ORDER: This writ petition is filed challenging the award passed in I.D.No.77 of 1992 dated 17.9.1994 on the file of the Industrial Tribunal- cum-Labour Court, Warangal. Petitioner is workman and first respondent is management. It appears, petitioner while conducting the Bus on 9.10.1991 on the route Jangoan-Hyderabad, a check was exercised at stage No.2/1 and the checking officials found certain cash and ticket irregularities. On the basis of report of the checking officials, a charge sheet was issued to the petitioner enumerating the following charges: 1. For having failed to observe the rule ‘issue and start’ which amounts to misconduct in terms of Regulation 29 (xxxii) of APSRTC Employees (Conduct) Reg. 1963. 2. For having failed to collect the fare issue tickets to a lady passengers found traveling without ticket who boarded the bus at Jangoan and bound for Hyderabad ex-stages 4 to 1, which amounts to misconduct in terms of Regulation 28 (vi)(a) of APSRTC Employees (Conduct) Reg. 1963. 3. For having issued unconcerned tickets of Rs.10/- (bearing No.068/020540 to 060/020550) to eleven (11) passengers in batches and individuals who boarded your bus at Bhongiri bound for Hyderabad ex-stages 2 to 1, after collection of fare amount of Rs.11/- each, which amounts to misconduct in terms of Regulation 28(vi)(a) of APSRTC Employees (Conduct) Reg. 1963. 4. For having closed the tray numbers of all denominations upto the place of check and closed the particular denomination of Rs.10/- as 55 though the block of Rs.10/- is 207 in the hand tray and not shown the number of issues in the issue column, which amounts to misconduct in terms of Regulation 28(xxxi) of APSRTC Employees (Conduct) Reg. 1963. 5. For having in possession of lock bearing No.068/020550 of Rs.10/- denomination which is thrown by you in the bus, which amounts to misconduct in terms of Regulation 28(xxxi) of APSRTC Employees (Conduct) Reg. 1963. After conducting a detailed enquiry into the matter, the disciplinary authority passed order of removal from service. Aggrieved thereby, petitioner raised a dispute under Section 2-A(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 before the Labour Court, Warangal in I.D.No.77 of 1992. It was the case of the petitioner before the Labour Court that the charges are trivial in nature and absolutely there was no evidence to prove the same. Further, the enquiry was not properly conducted as required under law. Assuming that there is some misconduct on his part, punishment of removal from service is shockingly disproportionate to that of the misconduct. The respondent- management filed a detailed counter denying the allegations made by the petitioner and submitted that the charges are grave in nature and they were proved in full and the enquiry was conducted after giving full and fair opportunity to the petitioner to defend himself. Therefore, the punishment of removal from service cannot said to be either arbitrary or illegal. The Labour Court, on the basis of the material placed before it, came to the conclusion that the enquiry conducted by the management was just and proper and the charges levelled against the petitioner were proved. However, while exercising powers under Section 11-A of the I.D. Act, the Labour Court directed for reinstatement of the petitioner holding that punishment of removal from service was not proportionate to that of the misconduct. Further, the Labour Court, while denying backwages directed the management to impose stoppage of three annual increments with cumulative effect and to reduce seniority of petitioner by five places in the seniority list of Conductors. Aggrieved by the same, the present writ petition is filed. The learned counsel for petitioner Smt.S.A.V.Ratnam strenuously contended that the charges are trivial in nature. The only charge against the petitoner was that he failed to collect fare and issue tickets. Therefore, such misconduct ought not to have been taken seriously. The Labour Court, while granting reinstatement, ought not to have denied backwages and other benefits and further ought not to have directed the management to impose stoppage of three annual increments with cumulative effect and to reduce his seniority by five places. Therefore, the award passed by the Labour Court, insofar as denying other benefits, is arbitrary and illegal. Per contra, the learned counsel for respondents Smt.P.Rajani Reddy strenuously contended that the charges are grave in nature. The second charge is that the petitioner failed to collect fare and issue ticket to a lady passenger and whereas charge No.3 is that petitioner had issued unconcerned tickets to eleven (11) passengers in batches and individuals who boarded the bus at Bhongiri after collecting fare amount. The petitioner had offered his explanation stating that there is some mistake on his part, but the same was not accepted by the disciplinary authority. The Labour Court, in its wisdom, while exercising powers under Section 11-A of the I.D. Act, passed award granting reinstatement of petitioner with continuity of service, but without any backwages, further directing the management to impose stoppage of three annual grade increments with cumulative effect and to reduce his seniority by five places in view of gravity of the charge. The Labour Court, itself has taken a lenient view of the matter, therefore, the petitoner does not deserve any relief from this Court. The writ petition is devoid of merits and 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 order and other material made available on record. The Labour Court, taking the overall circumstances into consideration, found that the charges alleged against the petitioner are proved, but held that the punishment of removal from service is disproportionate to that of the misconduct, therefore, directed reinstatement of petitioner, with continuity of service, but without any backwages and further directed the management to impose stoppage of three annual increments with cumulative effect and to reduce seniority of petitioner by five places in the seniority list of Conductors. In the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the opinion that the award passed by the Labour Court is inconsistent with the established procedure. The further imposition of punishment reducing the seniority of petitioner by five places in the seniority list seems to be unreasonable. Therefore, to this extent, the award passed by the Labour Court needs to be modified. In the result, the award passed by the Labour Court is modified holding that the petitioner is entitled for reinstatement into service, with continuity of service, but without any backwages and without any attendant benefits and further to suffer stoppage of three annual increments with cumulative effect. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of. No order as to costs. _____________ C.V.RAMULU, J Date: 13.2.2008 DA THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU WRIT PETITION NO : 10267 of 2000 13.2.2008