HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT PETITION No. 146 OF 2005 Dated 22nd December, 2009. Between K.Venkat Ramulu …Petitioner and The APSRTC, rep. by its Depot Manager, Gadwal, Mahaboobnagar District and anor. …Respondents. HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT PETITION No. 146 OF 2005 ORDER: The petitioner in I.D.No.123 of 2001 before the Labour Court-III, Hyderabad, challenges the Award dated 29.3.2004 passed therein, whereby the Labour Court modiﬁed the punishment of his removal from service and imposed upon him the punishment of deferment of two annual increments with cumulative eﬀect. The Labour Court directed reinstatement of the petitioner in service with continuity of service but without back wages and attendant benefits. The petitioner, a Conductor in the service of the Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation (APSRTC), was subjected to disciplinary proceedings mainly in connection with the allowing of prohibited articles to be carried in the bus while he was conducting the service enroute Gadwal to Garlapad on 13.1.2001. Certain other technical irregularities were also alleged against him. After due enquiry, the petitioner was removed from service by order dated 4.8.2001. Aggrieved thereby, he raised a dispute in I.D. No.123 of 2001 before the Labour Court. The Labour Court, upon examination of the material on record, came to the conclusion that the petitioner had allowed the prohibited articles, being 60 liters of High Speed Diesel, to be carried on the bus which was indicative of his gross negligence. The Labour Court therefore upheld the ﬁnding of the Enquiry Oﬃcer that the charge framed against the petitioner was duly proved. However, the Labour Court, taking note of the fact that the petitioner still had eight years of service and had remained unemployed, exercised jurisdiction under Section 11-A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and opined that the punishment of removal from service was shockingly disproportionate. Accordingly, the Labour Court interfered in the matter and directed reinstatement of the petitioner in service with continuity of service, while imposing upon him the punishment of deferment of two annual grade increments with cumulative eﬀect. The Labour Court also denied him back wages and other attendant benefits. Once the ﬁnding as to the misconduct had been upheld by the Labour Court, the scope for interference in the matter was limited. It was only on the ground of proportionality of the punishment that the Labour Court intervened in the matter and substituted the lesser punishment of deferment of two annual grade increments with cumulative eﬀect, along with denial of back wages and attendant beneﬁts. Thereby, the APSRTC was directed to reinstate the petitioner in service with continuity of service. I see no reason to interfere with this exercise of jurisdiction by the Labour Court under Section 11-A of the Act of 1947, whereby the petitioner was visited with a lesser punishment, notwithstanding the conﬁrmation of the misconduct alleged against him. The Writ Petition is therefore devoid of merit and is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. -------------------------------------- JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DATED 22ND DECEMBER, 2009. Msnr.