THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO.5335 OF 2001 DATED 7TH SEPTEMBER, 2010 BETWEEN The Depot Manager, APSRTC, Godavarikhani, Karimnagar District and Others. … Petitioners And K.Raji Reddy and Another. … Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO.5335 OF 2001 ORDER: The Officers of the Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation (APSRTC) challenge the Award dated 22.06.2000 passed by the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Godavarikhani, Karimnagar District, in I.D.No.84 of 1995. By the said Award, the Labour Court directed the reinstatement of the first respondent in service as a Conductor along with continuity of service and 50% of the back wages payable from the date of filing of the Industrial Dispute. The first respondent was appointed as a Conductor in the service of the APSRTC on 10.03.1989. During the check made on 25.03.1992 certain cash and ticket irregularities were alleged against him. Three charges were framed against him in this regard and a domestic enquiry was held in the matter. The first respondent was removed from service by order dated 23.10.1992. His appeal against the said removal from service met with failure under order dated 18.01.993. His review petition was rejected on 20.02.1993. He invoked the powers of the Labour Court under Section 2-A(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for brevity, ‘the Act of 1947’) two years thereafter in I.D.No.84 of 1995. The Labour Court, upon consideration of the material placed before it, found that the first respondent had admitted the serious charge of not issuing tickets to three passengers in spite of collecting fare from them. However, taking note of the fact that there were 115 passengers in the bus, the Labour Court was of the opinion that the punishment of removal from service was extreme and accordingly directed reinstatement of the first respondent in service. However, in view of the delay on the part of the first respondent in approaching it, the Labour Court limited the back wages payable to the first respondent to 50% of the amount payable from the date of filing of the petition. The first respondent was however granted continuity of service throughout. This Court, by interim order dated 27.03.2001, granted interim suspension of the Award under challenge subject to the condition that the petitioner-APSRTC deposited 50% of the amount awarded by the Labour Court. This direction was reiterated on 21.03.2002 duly taking note of the fact that the first respondent had been reinstated in service. The first respondent admittedly received the ticket fare from three passengers but failed to issue tickets to them. This Court would normally have held his removal from service to be justified. There is no question of applying the doctrine of proportionality in cases of misappropriation of funds, irrespective of the quantum involved. However, as the case of the first respondent was that the bus was over-crowded with 115 passengers and he was in the process of issuing tickets to the said three passengers at the time of the check, I am inclined to grant him the benefit of doubt and am therefore disinclined to interfere with the direction of the Labour Court in so far as his reinstatement in service is concerned. However, it is to be noticed that there are no reasons forthcoming from the Award under challenge as to why the Labour Court has granted even 50% of the back wages payable to be first respondent. Trite to state, award of back wages is no longer an automatic or incidental consequence of a direction of reinstatement in service. As pointed out by the Supreme Court in J.K.SYNTHETICS LTD. v. K.P.AGRAWAL[1], it is necessary for the Labour Court to apply its judicial mind and consider various relevant factors before granting such relief. No such exercise was undertaken in the present case. The direction of the Labour Court as regards payment of 50% of the back wages from the date of filing of the I.D. is therefore liable to be set aside and is accordingly so done. The APSRTC is at liberty to move an appropriate application before the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Godavarikhani, Karimnagar District, for refund of the amount deposited by it in this regard pursuant to the interim orders of this Court. The Award under challenge is confirmed in so far as reinstatement of the first respondent in service with continuity of service is concerned. The Writ Petition is accordingly allowed in part but in the circumstances, without any order as to costs. ____________________ SANJAY KUMAR, J. 7TH SEPTEMBER, 2010 VGSR/PGS [1] (2007) 2 SCC 433