THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY Writ Petition No.6515 of 1995 ORDER: This Writ Petition is filed by the Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation through Depot Manager, Nandyala Depot, challenging the validity of the award dated 13-04-1994 passed in I.D. No.17 of 1992 by the Chairman-cum-Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Anantapur. 2. The workman viz., one, Mr.D.Rama Rao was the Conductor working in the Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation in the Nandyala Depot. On 26-04-1990, while he was on duty as a conductor on the bus bearing No.AEZ 453, on the route Nandyal to Hyderabad, a check was exercised by the checking officials and on the ground that there are certain cash and ticket irregularities, disciplinary proceedings were initiated against him. After conducting regular departmental enquiry, based on the findings recorded by the Enquiry Officer, he was removed from the service. Appeal filed by him was also ended in dismissal by the appellate authority. When review petition was filed by the workman before the Regional Manager, he has ordered for reinstatement of the workman in the minimum time scale by treating a period of absence as not on duty for the purpose of leave wages and further ordered to deposit the security deposit of Rs.1,000/-. Aggrieved by the order of the Regional Manager, there was conciliation raised by the second respondent union and on submission of report to the Government, the dispute was referred to the Labour Court in G.O. Rt. No.130, dated 25-01-1992. The Industrial Tribunal by the impugned award has modified the punishment imposed by the review authority and ordered for payment of his pay in the regular time scale from the date of the award and set aside the demand of fresh deposit of Rs.1,000/- and further ordered that the period of suspension should be treated as on duty for the purpose of continuous service, without awarding back wages. 3. Heard the learned standing counsel for the petitioner corporation. In this writ petition it was submitted that the Tribunal has passed the impugned award without recording the valid reasons. 4. It is to be noted that in this case review authority himself has modified the punishment by directing for issuance of directions for reinstatement of the workman, but however, reduced the pay to the minimum time scale. What all ordered by the Tribunal is for payment of workman’s pay in regular time scale, which he was drawing at the time of removal and further ordered the period of suspension shall be treated as on duty only for the purpose of continuous service without awarding any back wages by modifying the said punishment. The said modification is made by the Tribunal in exercise of powers under Section 11-A of the Industrial Disputes Act. 5. For the aforesaid reasons, it cannot be said that the Tribunal has modified the punishment without recording any valid reasons. In any event, it is submitted that pursuant to the award of the Tribunal, workman is already reinstated and also retired from service on attaining the age of superannuation. Hence, I do not find any merit in the Writ Petition, so as to interfere with the award of the Tribunal, at this stage, in this Writ Petition, filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 6. The Writ Petition is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. _______________​________ R.SUBHASH REDDY, J. 27th February, 2009. skmr