THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR W.A.No.461 of 2004 JUDGMENT (Per Sri Justice Ghulam Mohammed) This appeal is filed aggrieved by the order of dismissal dated 22.07.2003, passed in W.P.No.2017 of 1999, whereunder the learned single Judge of this Court confirmed the award dated 24.02.1998 passed in I.D.No.2 of 1996 by the Labour Court-I, Hyderabad. 2. The brief facts are that the second respondent is working as Conductor in the appellant-APSRTC. He was issued with a charge memo on 16.07.1993, on the ground of certain cash and ticket irregularities. He submitted his explanation on 19.07.1993 denying the charges framed against him. After a detailed enquiry, the Corporation removed him from service by order dated 08.11.1993, against which, he preferred an appeal and the same was also rejected on 07.03.1994. Aggrieved by the same, the second respondent filed I.D.No.2 of 1996 before the Labour Court-I, Hyderabad. Through award dated 24.02.1998, the Labour Court directed the Corporation to reinstate the second respondent into service with continuity of service with all attendant benefits with 50% backwages. Challenging the same, the Corporation filed W.P.No.2017 of 1999 before this Court. Through the impugned order, the learned single Judge of this Court dismissed the writ petition confirming the award of the Labour Court. Hence, this appeal. 3. Learned Standing Counsel for the Corporation contended that since the second respondent had violated the rule of ‘Issue and Start’ and the charge framed to that effect was proved, the learned single Judge of this Court ought not to have sustained the order of reinstatement of the second respondent and 50% of backwages awarded to him by the Labour Court. He also contended that the learned single Judge of this Court ought to have seen that there was a delay of one and half years on the part of the second respondent in approaching the Labour Court. 4 . On the other hand, learned counsel for the second respondent contended that the Labour Court by observing that due to drunken state of the passengers at that point of time, the second respondent was unable to issue tickets to them, rightly held charge Nos.2 and 3 as not proved, and that the order of the Labour Court was confirmed by the learned single Judge of this Court. 5. We have perused the order impugned as well as the award of the Labour Court. The second respondent was charge sheeted with the following charges: 1. For having failed to observe the rule ‘Issue and start’ 2. For having failed to collect the fare and issue tickets to a batch of two passengers found alighting without tickets at Kesavagiri X Roads who boarded the bus at Charimar Ex-stages 1 to ½. 3. For having failed to collect fare and issue tickets to five individual passengers found travelling without tickets who boarded the bus at Charminar and bound for Tukkuguda Ex-stages 1 to 5. A detailed enquiry was conducted into the said charges resulting in removal of the second respondent from service. The Labour Court after considering all the material on record held charge No.1 as proved and charge Nos. 2 and 3 as not proved. 6. The material on record shows that there is a discrepancy in the explanation submitted by the second respondent to the charge memo with that of the statement given by him in the enquiry and also before the Labour Court. The Labour Court found that since the passengers were in a drunken condition at that point of time, the second respondent could not issue tickets to them as mentioned in Charge No.2 and therefore, he could not complete the issuance of tickets in respect of charge No.3 and thereby, held that charge Nos. 2 and 3 were not proved. As Charge No.1 framed with regard to violation of rule in discharging his duties as Conductor was proved, we deem it appropriate to modify the award of the Labour Court by reducing the backwages from 50% to 25%. 7. Accordingly, the Writ Appeal is allowed in part. The appellant shall pay the due amount to the second respondent within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. No order as to costs. ______________________ GHULAM MOHAMMED, J _________________ SANJAY KUMAR, J Date:23.09.2011 sj