IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE TWENTY SECOND DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR WRIT PETITION NO : 34408 of 1998 Between: 1 The Depot Manager, APSRTC Bus Depot, Zaheerabad, Medak. 2 The Dy.Chief Traffic Manager, APSRTC., Medak. 3 The Vice-Chairman & Managing Director, APSRTC, RTC "X" Roads, Musheerabad, Hyderabad. ..... PETITIONER(S) AND 1 G.Mallesham, S/o. Yellaiah, Ramakkapet, Dubbaka Mandal, Medak. 2 The Presiding Officer, Labour Court-II, Hyderabad. .....RESPONDENT(S) Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Aﬃdavit ﬁled herein the High Court will be pleased to to call for the records relating to the award in I.D.No.52/96 dated 04/04/1997 on the ﬁle of the Labour Court-II, Hyderabad, and quash the same as arbitrary and illegal by way of issue of writ of Certiorari or any other appropriate Writ, order or orders as the Hon'ble court may deem ﬁt and proper in the circumstances of the case. Counsel for the Petitioner:SMT.B.G.UMA DEVI Counsel for the Respondent No.: MR.V.NARASIMHA GOUD The Court made the following : Form-NIC-OGS/WP{MUK} HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR W.P.No.34408 of 1998 O R D E R: The petitioner-A.P. State Road Transport Corporation (for brevity ‘Corporation’) challenges the award of the Labour Court-II, Hyderabad, passed in I.D.No.52 of 1996, dated 04-04-1997, as published in G.O.Rt.No.155, dated 15-01-1998. By virtue of the said award, the workman was reinstated with attendant beneﬁts but with 25% of the back- wages. 2. The said order is assailed by the learned standing counsel, inter alia, on the ground that the charges framed against R-1 are serious in the sense that they amounted to misappropriation and that the Labour Court has considered the said charges in true spirit. The learned standing counsel also contends that the ﬁndings of the Labour Court, with respect to the validity of the domestic enquiry being in favour of R-1 have no reason for the Labour Court to interfere with the punishment imposed. 3. The record of the case discloses that the charges as framed are with regard to collection of one rupee each from four individuals instead of Rs.1-25 ps. and failure to issue tickets to the said four individual passengers, and the ﬁrst three charges out of four revolve around the said alleged irregularity. The Labour Court has rightly considered that the charge is prevailed and Ex.M-13 and M.16 where accepted intoto. 4. The Labour Court, however, has invoked its jurisdiction under Section 11-A of the Industrial Disputes Act and keeping in view, that the punishment involved is to be arrived at, it has directed the reinstatement of R-1 with attendant beneﬁts but with 25% of the back-wages only. 5. From the records of this case, it is evident that this Court passed interim order on 10-12-1998 granting stay of operation of the impugned award on condition that the petitioner deposits half of the back-wages and had also taken note of the fact that the workman was already reinstated into service, upon the date, the workman has been working from 31-01-1998 in pursuance of the impugned award and has already received half of the back-wages (12 ½%) awarded to him as per the interim order. Keeping in view of the fact that over the last ten years, the workman is working and denial of 75% of the back-wages is suﬃcient punishment. This Court feels that the impugned order of the Labour Court does not deserve to be interfered. 6. In the result, the Writ petition is dismissed. No costs. ________________ 22-08-2008 kvr