THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO WRIT PETITION No. 6342 OF 2011 O R D E R: Heard Smt. W.V.S. Rajeswari, learned Standing Counsel for the Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation (APSRTC). This Writ Petition is directed against the award passed by the Labour Court at Anantapur in I.D.No. 186 of 2001 on 13.02.2004. The petitioner was a workman. He was employed as a casual conductor in APSRTC and was attached to its Gooty Depot. As a measure of discipline, he has been proceeded against by the Depot Manager, Gooty, who, by his orders, dated 09.09.1999, removed the writ petitioner from service. On 17.06.1999, at about 18.00 hours, the bus conducted by the writ petitioner on route Kandlapalli-Pamidi, the Travelling Ticket Inspectors of the enforcement squad, Madanapalle conducted a check at about Stage No. 5. They have detected certain cash and ticket irregularities. They found that two tickets of Rs.3/- denomination were re-issued to two passengers, who boarded the bus at Sorakayalapet and found alighting at Pamidi. These two tickets were earlier used by him and hence, this is a case of recycling the tickets. Similarly, one other passenger was also issued another ticket of Rs.4/- denomination. The said passenger has boarded the bus at Kandlapalli and he was found alighting at Pamidi. The same ticket was used in the previous trip when the bus ran between Pamidi and Kandlapalli, as can be made out from the entries in the statistical return maintained by the writ petitioner. Hence, for his misconduct of recycling the tickets, thus causing loss of revenue to the Corporation, he has been proceeded against. During the enquiry, the TTI was examined and the writ petitioner has cross-examined the said witness. He has also examined two passengers on his behalf, but however, the enquiry officer held the petitioner guilty of misconduct with which finding the disciplinary authority agreed. The Labour Court has considered the entire matter once again. The two tickets bearing No. 650/809566 and 650/809578 of Rs.3/- denomination were already entered in statistical return No. A5/4292493, dated 17.06.1999. They were sold when the bus plied between Pamidi and Venkarajakalva. These very two tickets were recycled by the writ petitioner by issuing them to two passengers who boarded the bus at Sorakayalapet and travelled up to Pamidi. Similarly, the ticket bearing No. 451/699587 of Rs.4/- denomination was already accounted for in the statistical return as having been utilized in the trip between Pamidi and Kandlapalli, at 16.00 hours, whereas the same ticket was issued to the passengers who boarded the bus at Kandlapalli and who travelled up to Pamidi, at about 18.00 hours. Therefore, the misconduct alleged against the writ petitioner is clearly established. A conductor, who seeks to cause revenue loss, cannot be imposed any lesser punishment than that of removal from service. The Corporation earns its revenue by way of sale of tickets to the passengers and by way of collection of charges for carrying freight. Therefore, unless the conductors faithfully account for the sale proceeds of the tickets, the Corporation will not be earning its legitimate revenue. If the revenue loss is caused to the Corporation, it will adversely impact the operations undertaken by the Corporation. In such cases, employees, who resort to this impermissible act of recycling tickets, cannot be retained in service. Further, the past service of the writ petitioner also did not inspire any confidence in the mind of the Labour Court that given a chance, the writ petitioner would turn out to be a useful servant. Hence, it has declined to exercise the jurisdiction available with it in terms of Section 11-A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Further, I have not found any error committed by the Labour Court in exercise of its jurisdiction, warranting interference by this Court. Further, this Writ Petition has been instituted more than seven years after the award is passed by the Labour Court. Without any explanation whatsoever worth serious consideration, the laxity on the part of the writ petitioner to diligently prosecute the remedies available to him under law had to be necessarily held against him. For the aforesaid reasons, I find no merit in this Writ Petition and it is accordingly dismissed, but however, without costs. ---------------------------------- (NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO, J) 14th March 2011 ksld