THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION NO. 124 OF 1999 DATE: 21-1-2008 Between: The Depot Manager, APSRTC, Zaheerabad …… Petitioner And B.Laxmaiah and another …. Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION NO. 124 OF 1999 ORDER: Aggrieved by the award of the Labour Court-II, Hyderabad dated 6.3.1997, the present writ petition is filed. The 1st respondent, a conductor in the A.P.S.R.T.C. was issued a charge memo with the following charges: 1. For having collected the requisite fare of Rs.6.50 ps each from 20 passengers found travelling having boarded the bus at ZHB and bound for Bidhar, ex-stages 03 to 01 and issued unconfirmable tickets bearing No. 091/241339 to 343 (E.5), 091/241348 to 349 (E.2), 091/241352 to 357 (E.6), 091/241363 to 368 (E8), and 091/241370 of Rs.3.50 ps deno., in combination of correct ticket numbers bearing 089/302300 to 308 (E.9) and 089/302310 to 320 (E.11) from your hand tray to suit the requisite fare which constitutes misconduct in terms of Reg. 28(xxiii) of APSRTC Employees (Conduct) Regulations, 1963. 2. For having collected the requisite fare of Rs.6.50 ps for one passenger for his journey from ZHB to Bidhar, ex-stages 033/708544 of 0.50 ps deno., in combination of correct ticket No. 089/30 2322 of Rs.3/- deno., from your hand tray to suit the fare, which constitutes misconduct in terms of Reg. 28 (xxiii) of APSRTC Employees (Conduct) Regulations, 1963. 3. For having found Bus Cash Excess by Rs.15/- which constitutes misconduct in terms of Reg. 28 (xxiv) of APSRTC Employees (Conduct) Regulations 1963. 4. For having re-issued tickets (20) on 19.11.1988 bearing No. 091/241339 to 343 (E.5), 091/241348 & 349 (E.2), 091/241392 TO 357 (e.6), 091/241363 TO 368(e.6) AND 091/241370 OF Rs.3.50 ps deno., referred in charge No. 1 which were already sole and accounted on 13.11.1988 vide S.R. No. 56338 of CBS – Bidhar – ZHB service against stage No. 07 which constitutes misconduct in terms of Re. 28 (xxiii) of APSRTC Employees (Conduct) Regulations, 1963. 5. For having re-issued one ticket on 19.11.1988bearing No. 033/708544 of 0.50 ps deno., referred in charge No.2 which was already sold and accounted against stage No. 01 on 19.11.1988 vide S.R. No. 56338 of CBS Bidhar – ZHB service against stage No. 01 which constitutes misconduct in terms of Reg. 28 (xxiii) of APSRTC Employees (Conduct) Regulations, 1963. A departmental enquiry was held and, on the charges being established therein, the 1st respondent was imposed the punishment of removal from service, vide proceedings dated 12.4.1990. The appeal preferred there-against was rejected. Aggrieved thereby, the 1s respondent invoked the jurisdiction of the Labour Court-II, Hyderabad under Section 2-A(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Before the Labour Court Ex.M1 to M.24 were marked on behalf of the petitioner herein. The Labour Court held that it was made out that the petitioner had committed irregularities as his explanation and defence were rejected by the enquiry officer and also by the petitioner herein. On the quantum of punishment, the Labour Court referred to 1988 LIC 834 and observed that the punishment of removal was harsh and disproportionate. The Labour Court, under Section 11-A of the Industrial Disputes Act, has the jurisdiction to re-appreciate the evidence on record to come to a conclusion as to whether the charges are held established or not. Even in case it comes to the conclusion that the charges are held established, it can still interfere with the quantum of punishment. However, interference with the quantum of punishment imposed by the employer on the employee for proved acts of misconduct cannot be as a matter of course or on the grounds of misplaced sympathy. The triviality of the amount involved cannot be a justification for taking a lenient view if the charges are grave and serious in nature. The conductors of the APSRTC work in fiduciary capacity. I n Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation v. B.S.Hullikatti (AIR 2001 SC 930), the Supreme Court observed that it was the responsibility of bus conductor to collect correct fares from the passengers and deposit the same in the Corporation, that conductors act in a fiduciary capacity, that it would be gross misconduct if, knowingly, they did not collect any fare or the correct amount of fare and that, in such cases, interference with the punishment of dismissal from service was a case of misplaced sympathy by the Labour Court. I n Regional Manager, Rajastan State Road Transport Corporation v. Ghanshyam Sharma (2002(1) LLJ 234), the Supreme Court held that the proved acts amounted either to a case of dishonesty or of gross negligence and bus conductors, who by their actions or inactions cause financial loss to the Corporation, were not fit to be retained in service. In V.Ramana v. A.P.S.R.T.C. (AIR 2005 SC 3417), the Supreme Court held that Courts/Tribunals should not interfere unless the punishment imposed by the disciplinary authority or the appellate authority shocks the conscience of the Court/Tribunal. The Labour Court, in interfering with the punishment, was influenced solely by the fact that the amount involved was trivial. Where the charges held established relate to misappropriation or failure to account for the amount, which rightfully belongs to the Corporation, triviality of the amount involved is of little consequence. I consider it appropriate, therefore, to set aside the award and remand the matter back for the Labour Court-II, Hyderabad for exercise of its jurisdiction under Section 11-A of the Industrial Disputes Act. Sri B.G.Umadevi, Learned Standing Counsel for the petitioner, fairly submits that the petitioner was reinstated into service on 5.3.1998 subject to the result of the writ petition. Since, admittedly, the 1st respondent has been working for the past decade, I consider it appropriate to direct the petitioner herein to continue him in service pending fresh adjudication by the Labour Court. Since the dispute relates to the year 1994, and more than 13 years have elapsed since then, it is appropriate that the Labour Court-II, Hyderabad decides the matter as expeditiously as possible, in any event, not later than four months from the date of receipt of the order. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of. No order as to costs. ____________ 21-1-2008 asp