IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE FIFTEENTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU WRIT PETITION No.29035 of 1997 Between: G.Narasing Rao S/o G.Gopaiah R/o 11-1-779/3/1, Chintabai, Chilkalguda, Secunderabad. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Addl.Industrial Tribunal Cum Addl.Labour Court, rep.by its Chairman Cum Presiding Officer. Hyderabad. 2 The Depot Manager, Ranigunj-I Depot, A.P.S.R.T.C. Ranigunj, Secunderabad. ....RESPONDENTS 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 issue a writ of Certiorari or any other appropriate writ order or direction and to quash the award of the 1st respondent in I.D.No.82/1996 dt.25-3-1997, in so far as its denial of back wages to the petitioner is concerned, and forfeiting one annual increment in the time scale of pay. Counsel for the Petitioner: Mr.V.SRINIVAS Counsel for Respondent No.1: GP FOR LABOUR Counsel for Respondent No.2: The Court made the following : ORAL ORDER: This Writ Petition is directed against an Award dated 25-3-1997 passed in I.D.No.82 of 1996 on the file of Additional Industrial Tribunal-cum-Additional Labour Court, Hyderabad insofar as denying back wages to the petitioner is concerned. Petitioner is the workman. Respondent No.2 is the Management. It appears, the petitioner was working as a Conductor in Ranigunj-I Depot of A.P. State Road Transport Corporation, Secunderabad. When he was conducting the bus, a check was exercised and certain cash and ticket irregularities were found. Basing on the same, a charge sheet dated 26-7-1995 was issued to him. After conducting a detailed enquiry into the matter, petitioner was removed from service. Aggrieved thereby, he filed a petition under Section 2-A(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act,1947 (for short ‘the Act’) stating that absolutely there was no misconduct on his part and the enquiry was not properly conducted. Even assuming that there was some misconduct, the punishment of removal from service was disproportionate to that of the misconduct alleged. Respondent-Management filed a detailed counter denying the allegations made by the petitioner and asserting that the enquiry was properly conducted and the charges are grave in nature and were proved; therefore, the only punishment that could be imposed against him was removal from service. Before the Tribunal, though no oral evidence was let in by either side, on behalf of the petitioner-workman Exs.W1 and W2 and on behalf of the respondent- Management Exs.M1 to M16 were marked. After a perusal of the entire material placed before the Labour Court, it came to the conclusion that though the charges were proved, the misconduct committed by the petitioner was trivial in its nature and for that, the punishment of removal from service was harsh and highly disproportionate. Therefore, the Labour Court directed reinstatement of the petitioner with continuity of service, but without any back wages and further directed forfeiture of one annual increment in the time scale of pay of the petitioner. Aggrieved thereby, the present Writ Petition is filed. Learned counsel for the petitioner strenuously contended that the Labour Court having found that the charges are trivial in their nature ought to have awarded back wages and no reasons were furnished by the Labour Court for denying the back wages. Learned counsel for the 2nd respondent supported the impugned Award and stated that the Tribunal itself has taken a lenient view of the matter and directed reinstatement of the petitioner with continuity of service, but without any back wages and as such, petitioner does not deserve any further relief to be granted. The 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. At the outset, it is necessary to notice that the petitioner had put in more than 20 years of service when the misconduct was committed by him. The only charge framed against him was that he failed to issue tickets to two lady passengers after having collected Rs.1.75 ps. from each of them at the boarding point itself. In the explanation, it was stated by the petitioner that though he had collected the money, he could not issue tickets, as two other passengers boarded the running bus in between stage and before reaching the TIC point, check had taken place and the two passengers told that they were going to Jubilee Bus Station and the vehicle was stopped due to traffic jam. The explanation submitted by the petitioner, particularly, who had more than 20 years of service at the relevant point of time seems to be very unreasonable. Once the petitioner has collected the money from one after the other, he was supposed to issue tickets immediately and proceed further. Simply because the passengers boarded in between the stages, that does not mean that he need not issue tickets having collected money from them. This explanation was not proper. However, the Labour Court took a lenient view and held that since the charges are trivial in nature, the punishment of removal from service is shockingly disproportionate to that of the misconduct and directed reinstatement with continuity of service, but without any back wages and further directed forfeiture of one annual increment in the time scale of pay. As rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the 2nd respondent, the Labour Court itself has taken a lenient view of the matter and granted relief of reinstatement with continuity of service, but without back wages. In the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the opinion that the Labour Court has not committed any error in passing the Award denying back wages. Petitioner does not deserve any further relief and the Labour Court has not committed any error calling for interference of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The Writ Petition is devoid of merits and is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. 15-4-2008 prk