THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO.1826 OF 2007 DATED 11th NOVEMBER, 2010 BETWEEN G.Bhupal Reddy … Petitioners And The Presiding Officer, Labour Court-I, Chandravihar Complex, Nampally, Hyderabad and another . Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO.1826 OF 2007 O R D E R The unsuccessful petitioner in I.D. No.46 of 2004 on the file of the Labour Court-I, Hyderabad, assails the NIL Award dated 11.08.2006 passed therein. The petitioner, a Conductor in the service of the Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation (APSRTC) since the year 1980, was subjected to disciplinary proceeding under charge sheet dated 30.07.2003 on two charges: 1) For having collected the requisite fare of Rs.7/- and issued tickets bearing Nos.055937694, 695 and 698 each-3 of Rs.7/- denomination which were unconcerned to your Tray NO.282 STAR No.07/586776 to 3 individual passengers found traveling from Srinivasa Nagar and bound for Sec’bad Station ex-stages 11 to 1 and thus caused revenue loss of Rs.21/- to the Corporation which constitutes serious misconduct in terms of Regulation No.28(xxxi) & (ix-a) of APSRTC Employees (Conduct) Regulations, 1963. 2) For having kept E.2 unconcerned tickets bearing Nos.055937697 and 052636692 of Rs.7/- denomination in your cash bag and detected by the TTIs at the point of check which shows your fraudulent motive and which constitutes serious misconduct in terms of Regulation 28(xxxii) of APSRTC Employees (Conduct) Regulations, 1963. After an enquiry, the petitioner was removed from service under order dated 18.12.2003 duly following the prescribed procedure. His appeal met with failure on 23.02.2004. He therefore raised the subject industrial dispute before the Labour Court. As the petitioner did not dispute the validity of the enquiry, the Labour Court examined the evidence adduced in the said enquiry to prove the charges against him. Thereupon, the Labour Court found no reason to interfere with the findings of the Enquiry Officer. Taking into account the past record of the petitioner, the Labour Court opined that his removal from service was justified, thereby leading to the dismissal of the I.D. Sri V.Narasimha Goud, learned counsel appearing for Sri S.Pradeep Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner, contended that the Labour Court erred in not exercising jurisdiction under Section 11- A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The learned counsel argued that the findings recorded in the enquiry were perverse and opposed to the material on record. As regards the first charge, the learned counsel submitted that all the three passengers involved in the said charge deposed before the Enquiry Officer in support of the petitioner’s innocence but the Enquiry Officer and thereafter, the Labour Court, ignored the said evidence and held the charge duly proved. As regards the second charge, the leaned counsel submitted that the petitioner had denied the same from the very beginning and argued that in the absence of any independent evidence, the charge ought not to have been held to be proved. On the other hand, Sri Bhoopal Reddy, learned counsel representing Sri K.Madhava Reddy, learned standing counsel for the APSRTC, submitted that the petitioner had suffered adverse findings before the lower authorities and the Labour Court and argued that no valid grounds were made out for this Court to overturn the confirmed findings. Though there is substance in the argument advanced by Sri V.Narasimha Goud, learned counsel, that the Labour Court did not go about the exercise of its jurisdiction under Section 11-A of the Act of 1947 in the proper perspective, the issue does not end there. It would also be necessary for this Court to come to a conclusion that the findings which formed the basis for the punishment imposed upon the petitioner suffer from perversity or material irregularity. Mere lapses on the part of the Labour Court in discharging its functions under the statute would not vitiate the punishment imposed upon the petitioner. It is no doubt true that neither the Enquiry Officer nor the Labour Court dealt with the statements of the three passengers in the course of the enquiry in relation to the first charge, wherein they came out with versions quite contrary to their spot statements. Though such evidence ought not to have been ignored by the authorities and the Court below, this Court would still have to examine whether the same inspires confidence. The sum and substance of the charges were that the petitioner had issued three unconnected tickets bearing Nos.055937694, 695 and 698 to three passengers and also had in his possession two unconnected tickets, one of which belonged to the same series with serial No.055937697. Two of the said three passengers in their depositions before the enquiry, viz., Uma and L.Rajasekhar, stated that they had picked up the said used tickets from the floor of the bus and presented them to the TTIs as if they had purchased the same from the petitioner. However, the third passenger, K.Raju, stated that he had actually purchased a ticket from the petitioner for Rs.7/- but while talking to another passenger he wanted to throw out the old ticket purchased by him on the earlier day and in that process he tore the fresh ticket purchased by him from the petitioner and kept the old ticket in his pocket. According to him, this old ticket which was purchased on the earlier day was presented by him to the TTI at the time of the check. In the light of the statement of this passenger to the effect that the ticket produced by him was the one purchased on the earlier day, it is inexplicable as to how the series number of this ticket could have tallied with the series number of the tickets allegedly picked up from the floor of the bus by the other two passengers and also with the ticket which was found in the cash bag of the petitioner. Not only did the series number tally but the tickets were also very proximate numerically, ranging between the numbers 694 to 698. This discrepancy in the statement of the passenger, K.Raju, clearly demonstrates that it is bereft of truth. The lack of veracity which taints this passenger’s testimony would consequently taint the other two passengers’ evidence also as there is no proof to show that this series number of tickets had been used on the said bus earlier during that day to support their version. Therefore, notwithstanding the error committed by the authorities below and the Labour Court in completely ignoring this evidence, this Court is not inclined to take stock of these passengers’ statements. In so far as the second charge is concerned, except for the bald denial by the petitioner that no such tickets were found in his cash bag there is no evidence whatsoever to support his innocence. There is no reason as to why the TTIs would foist a false case upon him under this charge. Further, the fact that the series number of one of the two tickets allegedly found in the cash bag, marked in evidence, matches the series number of the tickets in charge No.1 and is numerically proximate thereto clearly demonstrates that the second charge was proved beyond reasonable doubt. Given the totality of the aforestated facts, the findings recorded on both the charges cannot be said to be perverse or opposed to the material on record. The Labour Court ought not to have relied upon the past record of the petitioner as the same was never put to him. However, this lapse is relevant only for applying the doctrine of proportionality. Once the petitioner is found guilty of both the charges levelled against him reflecting lack of integrity on his part and also failure to discharge his fiduciary obligations to the APSRTC; in the light of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in REGIONAL MANAGER, UPSRTC V/s. HOTI LAL[1], the strictest punishment is called for and there would be no room for lenience or application of the doctrine of proportionality. Viewed from any angle, the Award of the Labour Court does not call for interference. The writ petition is devoid of merit and is accordingly dismissed. No costs. -------------------------- SANJAY KUMAR,J 11th NOVEMBER, 2010 PGS THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO.1826 OF 2007 DATED 11th NOVEMBER, 2010 [1] (2003) 3 SCC 605