IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE THIRTEENTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU WRIT PETITION NO : 27355 of 2003 Between: T. V enkata Ramanjaneyulu S/o.T. Venkata Narayana R/o. Himakuntla Village, Kadapa District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Rep., by its Chairman. Ananthapur. 2 The Depot Manager, APSRTC., Rayachoti, Kadapa District. .....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 call for the records from the 1st respondent and issue an appropriate Writ, Order or Direction, more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Certiorari and quash the Award passed by the 1st respondent in I.D.No.313 of 2001, dated 13.8.2003, published on 24.11.2003, holding the same as illegal, contrary to law and perverse and consequently grant the relief of reinstatement into service with full wages and all other attendant benefits. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.A.K.JAYAPRAKASH RAO Counsel for the Respondent No.1: GP FOR LABOUR Counsel for the Respondent No.2: Smt W.V.S.Rajeswari The Court made the following : ORDER This writ petition is filed challenging the award made in I.D.No.313 of 2001, dated 13.8.2003 on the file of the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Anantapur, whereunder no relief was granted to the workman. Petitioner is the workman and second respondent is the Management. It appears that while the petitioner was conducting the bus bearing No.Ap-9Z-9992 on the route Rayachoti-Kadiri, when the bus reached the stage No.16, a check has been exercised by the checking officials and they found certain cash and ticket irregularities, and on the basis of the report of the checking officials, a charge sheet was issued enumerating the following charges. 1.For having collected an amount of Rs.38/- from a batch of two passengers who boarded the bus at Gaalivedu and bound for Kadiri ex-stages 7 to 16 towards luggage instead of collecting requisite amount of Rs.16/- only. Thus, you have collected an amount of Rs.22-00 excess to the correct luggage as illegal gratification which constitutes misconduct under Reg.28 (x) of APSRTC Employees (Conduct) Reg.1963. 2.For having misbehaved with TTI at the time of check when the TTIs questioned about illegal gratification of Rs.22/- from a batch of two passengers who boarded the bus at Gaalivedu bound for Kadiri Ex-stages 7 to 16 along with 8 bags of rice you have stated as “ ‘I have excess collected Rs 22/- only from the passengers. Shall I not collect Rs.22/- from the passengers. If you write any case against me I will see your end. What are you thinking about me? I belong to Pulivendula area” which constitutes misconduct under Reg.28 (viii) of APSRTC Employees (Conduct) Reg.1963.” After conducting a detailed enquiry into the said charges, the petitioner was removed from service by an order dated 23.6.1999. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner raised a dispute in I.D.No.313 of 2001, dated 13.8.2003 before the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Anantapur. Before the Labour Court, it was the case of the petitioner that he did not commit any misconduct as alleged by the checking officials. Further, there was no evidence to prove the said charges. Even assuming that there was any misconduct on his part, the punishment of dismissal from service was disproportionate to that of the misconduct alleged. The respondent-Corporation filed a detailed counter denying the allegations made by the petitioner. No oral or documentary evidence was adduced on either side. However, on perusal of the entire material placed before it, the labour Court came to the conclusion that the enquiry conducted by the respondent-Management was valid and the charges framed against the petitioner were proved and since he was earlier awarded punishment of deferment of annual increments by five times, he is not entitled for any relief, therefore, dismissed the claim petition filed under Section 2-A (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( for short ‘the Act’). Aggrieved by the same, the present writ petition is field. Learned counsel for the petitioner strenuously contended that this is not a case where the petitioner has not issued or not collected money; nor having collected the money has not issued the tickets. This is a case where the allegation is very strange that the petitioner had collected an amount of Rs.22/- in excess for luggage fare from the passengers. The checking officials have not verified the cash balance available with the petitioner to come to the conclusion that he had collected excess money from the passengers. Learned counsel further contended that the TTIs threatened the passengers and therefore, they gave wrong statements and in fact, the petitioner has not attested the statements given by the passengers. Once, it is not attested by the petitioner, the veracity of the statement made by the passengers cannot be taken into consideration. Even assuming that there was some misconduct, the punishment of removal from service is shockingly disproportionate to that of the misconduct alleged. Therefore, the Labour Court ought to have seen that the order of removal from service is illegal and the punishment imposed is disproportionate and as such, it is liable to be set aside. Further, the labour Court has not properly exercised its powers vested under Section 11-A of the Act. This is one such case where the petitioner is entitled for granting some relief by invoking the provisions under Section 11-A of the Act. Per contra, Smt W.V.S.Rajeswari, learned standing counsel for the respondent-Corporation, strenuously contended that the charge that the petitioner has collected Rs.22/- excess from the passengers was held to be proved and further, the petitioner was awarded punishment of deferment of annual grade increments five times earlier. In view of this and as well as the seriousness of the charges, which are proved, the petitioner does not deserve any relief and therefore, the labour Court has rightly rejected his case and no interference is called for by this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Writ petition is devoid of merits and is liable to be dismissed. I have given my earnest consideration to the respective submissions made by the learned counsel on either side and perused the impugned award and other material made available on record. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed before this Court the statement of the petitioner before the Enquiry Officer, spot explanation, statements of the TTIs and passengers to show that the petitioner has made a statement on the spot that he had returned the balance amount to the passengers and there was no misconduct on his part. It is true that in the charge memo, there was no such misconduct on his part; but the respondents have issued the charge sheet on the basis of some special report by the TTIs as to his mis-behaviour, which does not find place in the spot explanation or in the passengers statements or in the charge memo. The Labour Court has simply brushed aside the case of the petitioner that there is no necessity of verifying the cash balance from the cash bag. According to the petitioner, one of the established practices while checking the bus, is to verify the cash balance, if there is any such necessity, particularly, at the request of the conductor. This was not done by the checking officials. The previous misconduct on which the relief was refused was not part of the charge nor it could have deterred the labour Court from considering the case of the petitioner under Section 11-A of the Act for granting some relief. In the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the opinion that for the charges leveled against the petitioner, even if they are proved, the punishment of removal from service is shockingly disproportionate to that of the misconduct alleged. I am of the opinion that Labour Court has not properly exercised its powers vested under Section 11-A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. To meet ends of justice, the order of removal is set aside and the award passed by the Labour Court is modified as under: “In the result, the respondent-Corporation is directed to reinstate the petitioner, as Conductor, with continuity of service, from the date of his first appointment till the date of his removal from service i.e., 1992 to 23.6.1999. However, the petitioner is not entitled for any back wages and other attendant benefits from the date of his removal till 31st March, 2008.” The writ petition is, accordingly, disposed of. No costs. __________ 13-03-2008 rkk ..... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1.2CCs to 2.2CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WP{MSKM}