THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. RAMULU WRIT PETITION No. 3701 of 2005 O R D E R: This Writ Petition is directed against the Award dated 03.08.2004 made in I.D.No. 22 of 2002 on the file of the Labour Court-III, Hyderabad. The petitioner is the Management of the Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation. Respondent No.1 is the workman. It appears, Respondent No.1 was appointed as a Conductor on temporary basis in 1979. while so, when he was conducting a bus bearing No. 2849 on the route Achampet to Maddimadugu, on 21.02.2001, a check was exercised at Stage No. 1 and it was found that there were certain cash and ticket irregularities and a charge sheet was issued to that effect, framing the following charges: 1) For having issued the ticket bearing No. 297/021228 of Rs.6/- E1 to a passenger on sight of the TTIs who boarded the bus at Ippalapally and found alighting at Maddimadugu ex-stages No. 3 to 1 duly punched the ticket irregularly 03 to 0, instead of 03 to 01, in spite of collecting the fare of Rs.5/- instead of Rs.6/- less by Rs.1/- at his boarding point itself which constitutes misconduct under Reg.28(vi)(a) of APSRTC Employees’ (Conduct) Reg. 1963. 2) For having failed to close the ticket tray nos. of all denominations in the SR against the stage No. 3 to 1, hence marked “XXX” by the checking officials which constitutes misconduct under Reg. 28(xxxii) of APSRTC Employees’ (Conduct) Reg. 1963. 3) For having failed to observe the rule ‘issue close & start’ which constitutes misconduct under Reg.28(xxxii) of APSRTC Employees’ (Conduct) Reg. 1963. After completing all the formalities, Respondent No. 1 was removed from service on 06.09.2001. Aggrieved thereby, he raised a dispute under Section 2-A(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 before the Labour Court - III, Hyderabad, where the counsel appeared for Respondent No.1 filed a memo under Section 11-A of the 1947 Act. Therefore, the procedure followed in the enquiry was not challenged and the Labour Court proceeded to appreciate the evidence on record and came to the conclusion that charges 1 to 3 even proved on re-appreciation of the evidence, it is only the mistake committed by the petitioner, but not the misconduct and therefore, held that the punishment imposed is shockingly disproportionate to that of the proven misconduct and therefore, directed the petitioner Management to re-instate Respondent No.1 into service with continuity of service and back wages, and to impose the punishment of stoppage of one increment with cumulative effect making it clear that the period of suspension should not be counted for any purpose. Aggrieved thereby, the present Writ Petition has been filed. Learned Standing Counsel appearing for the petitioner Corporation strenuously contended that the charges, as noticed supra, are grave in nature and they were proved in full and there was no necessity for the Labour Court to interfere with the order passed by the Management. He further contended that the Labour Court erroneously held that Charges 1 to 3 even if they were proved, it is only a mistake but not misconduct on the part of the employee, and in that view of the matter, the Award passed by the Labour Court is liable to be set aside. Though notices were served on Respondent No.1, neither anybody appeared nor there is any representation on his behalf. I have given my earnest consideration to the submissions made by the learned Standing Counsel for the petitioner and perused the impugned order and other material made available on record. As per the SR, Ex.M1, in all, there was only one passenger in the bus, who was found to be traveling without ticket and he was issued with ticket at Stage No. 1 while alighting after sighting the checking officials. Further, it was found that though the fare is Rs.5/-, Respondent No.1 issued ticket with Rs.6/- denomination. Apart from that, punching on the ticket was also wrongly done. Instead of stage No. 3 to 1, it was punched at stage No. 3 to 0. The passenger stated in the explanation that he has paid Rs.5/-, but a ticket for Rs.6/- was issued. These all would go to show that Respondent No.1 issued the ticket only on sighting the checking officials. However, the explanation of Respondent No.1 was that he was demanding Rs.1/- more from the passenger and in the meanwhile, the check took place. With regard to the punching at wrong place, he stated that it was only unintentional. This explanation of Respondent No.1 was accepted by the Labour Court to be true and therefore, held that all the charges even if they are proved it is only mistake on the part of Respondent No.1 and not a misconduct. I am of the opinion that the Labour Court has not properly appreciated the evidence, but however, the Labour Court, in its wisdom, while exercising its discretion under Section 11-A of the 1947 Act, in the facts and circumstances of the case, set aside the removal order and directed reinstatement of the workman with continuity of service and back wages but without attendant benefits. It can be said that the charges are grave in nature for more than one reason; that the passenger boarded at Stage No.3 was found alighting at Stage No.1 and there was only one passenger in the bus and he was not issued with proper ticket. Even assuming that the punishment is disproportionate to that of the misconduct alleged, as held by the Labour Court, granting of back wages in a case of this nature would amount to rewarding a person who has done a wrong. Therefore, I am of the opinion that Respondent No.1 does not deserve back wages. Therefore, the Award passed by the Labour Court is modified directing the petitioner Management to reinstate Respondent No.1 with continuity of service and attendant benefits but without back wages. The findings with regard to the punishment of stoppage of one increment with cumulative effect and that the period of suspension shall not be counted for any purpose, are confirmed. The Writ Petition is accordingly disposed of. No costs. -------------------- (C. V. RAMULU, J) 10th June 2010 ksld