THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU W.P.No.25521 of 2005 ORAL ORDER: This writ petition is directed against the award made in I.D.No.16 of 2003 dated 7.4.2004 on the file of the Industrial Tribunal- cum-Labour Court, Visakhapatnam, whereunder the reference made by the Government under Section 10(1)(c) of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, which reads as under: “Whether the action of the Managing Director, APSRTC, Hyderabad in imposing the punishment of deferment of annual increment for a period of two years with cumulative effect besides treating the period of suspension as not on duty and recovery of Rs.47.50 ps. towards cost of printing charges of tickets, on Sri K.Nageswara Rao, E.101966, Senior Assistant (M), Zonal Stores Vizianagaram, is justified? If not, to what relief the workman is entitled?” was allowed in favour of the workman and the punishment imposed on the respondent-workman was set aside. It appears, one K.Nageswara Rao, Senior Assistant (Materials) working in Zonal Stores, Vizianagaram was issued with a charge sheet, enumerating the following charges: “For your negligence in performing your duties of verifying the tickets, stocks position physically from time to time and ledger position in the S&F Ward, Zonal Stores, Vizianagaram while you were working there as Senior Assistant (Materials) with effect from 24.8.1994 to 23.8.1995 which resulted in the loss of the tickets of various denominations as detailed under the “allegations” above i.e. to a tune of Rs.43,33,000/- from the S&F ward, Zonal Stores, Vizianagaram, which constitutes serious misconduct under Regulation 28(ix)(a) of APSRTC Employees’ (Conduct) Regulations 1963”. Though the respondent-workman submitted his explanation to the said charge sheet, the same was not accepted and an enquiry was conducted and ultimately final order was passed imposing the workman with punishment of stoppage of two increments with cumulative effect. Aggrieved thereby Union raised a dispute and ultimately the matter was referred to the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Visakhapatnam. Before the Labour Court, it was the plea of the workman that there was no negligence on his part in performing the duty and he never indulged in any misconduct as stated by the management. Further the enquiry was not properly conducted and absolutely there was no evidence to show that he was guilty of the charge. Petitioner-management filed a detailed counter denying the averments made in the claim petition. None were examined on either side and no documents were marked on behalf of workman. However, on behalf of petitioner-management, Exs.M1 to M15 were marked. After a detailed consideration of the entire matter on record, the Labour Court passed Award setting aside the order passed by the disciplinary authority imposing punishment of stoppage of two increments with cumulative effect. Aggrieved by the same, management filed the present writ petition. The learned counsel for petitioner-management submitted that the Labour Court having found that the workman is negligent in performing his duties to some extent, ought not to have interfered with the punishment imposed by the management. Whereas the learned counsel for respondent-workman supported the impugned award passed by the Labour Court and submitted that absolutely there was no evidence on record to hold the workman guilty of the charge. The findings recorded by the enquiry officer and confirmed by the disciplinary authority are bereft of any evidence whatsoever. Therefore, the Labour Court has rightly found that the workman was not guilty of the charges and as such set aside the punishment of stoppage of two increments with cumulative effect. 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. The charge against the workman is that he was negligent in performing his duties of verifying the tickets, stocks position physically from time to time and ledger position in the S&F Ward, Zonal Stores, Viziangaram while working as Senior Assistant (Materials) from 24.8.1994 to 23.8.1995, which resulted in the loss of tickets of various denominations to a tune of Rs.43,33,000/-. It appears, two other employees who were working along with workman and against whom criminal cases were booked, were convicted by the Criminal Court, whereas the respondent-workman who was not implicated in the police case, was issued with the above charge sheet holding that he was negligent in attending to his duties. No specific allegations were made against the respondent-workman. Only some random allegations are made stating that from 24.8.1994 to 23.8.1995 he was negligent in verifying the physical stocks from time to time. The Labour Court held that the management has not placed all the material documents before the Court. The management also has not produced the explanation given by the workman to the show cause notice dated 11.9.1997 that was issued to him. Non-production of material documents, makes the Court to come to the conclusion that the management wanted to suppress certain things without bringing them to light. It was further held that for the offences that were committed by some of the staff members, though the workman is negligent to some extent, the workman cannot be taken to task. As such the management, ought to have imposed some other minor penalty warning him to be careful in future. The punishment imposed on the workman is not justified. I am of the opinion that the Labour Court, in its wisdom, while exercising powers under Section 11-A of the I.D. Act and taking into consideration of overall circumstances into consideration, passed such an order. The said order cannot be said to be either arbitrary or illegal. The Labour Court has not committed any error warranting interference of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The writ petition is devoid of merits and liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. ______________ C.V.RAMULU, J Date: 9.2.2011 DA THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU W.P.No.25521 of 2005 9.2.2011 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU W.P.No.25521 of 2005 Date: 9th February, 2011 Between: The Managing Director, APSRTC, Musheerabad, Hyderabad. .. Petitioner And The Zonal Secretary, APSRTC Employees Union, Vizianagaram and another. .. Respondents