ORAL ORDER: This writ petition is filed questioning the award made in I.D.No.118 of 1993 dated 6.7.1995 on the file of the Labour Court-II, Hyderabad insofar as denying back wages and further imposing punishment of reducing the pay of the petitioner to that of basic pay. The only ground raised by the learned counsel for petitoner is that when the Labour Court had found that the charges are not proved, it ought to have granted the entire relief as prayed for, i.e. reinstatement, with continuity of service, full back wages and attendant benefits. Unfortunately, the Labour Court has granted only reinstatement with continuity of service, but without back wages and without attendant benefits and further directed the management to reduce the pay of the petitioner to the minimum of the timescale. According to the learned counsel for petitioner, in the facts and circumstances of the case, imposing such a punishment is unreasonable. Therefore, the Labour Court erred in passing such an award imposing further punishment of reducing the pay of the petitioner to the minimum of the timescale while denying back wages and attendant benefits. Whereas the learned counsel for respondent strenuously contended that the Labour Court has not committed any error calling interference of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In fact, the Labour Court has taken a lenient view of the matter and granted the relief of reinstatement with continuity of service, for which the petitioner is not entitled. 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 charges levelled against the petitioner are as under: 1. For having violated the rule ‘Issue and Start’ without any valid reasons while you were performing your duty on 9.5.192 which constitutes misconduct under Reg. 28 (xxxii) of APSRTC Employees (Conduct) Reg. 1963”. 2. You have collected the requisite fare of Rs.1.75 ps. each from two passengers who boarded your bus at Sirnapally and bound for Gannaram ex-stages 9 to 7. You have reissued tickets bearing Nos.407/389218 and 407/389227 of Rs.2.25 denomination which were already issued and accounted at stage No.9 (Sirnapaly 1st trip) which constitutes misconduct under Reg. 28 (x) and (xxxii) of APSRTC Employees (Conduct) Reg. 1963”. 3. You have collected the requisite fare of Rs.1.50 each from two passengers i.e. one adult and one chargeable child who boarded your bus at Nallavally and bound for Gannaram ex-stages 8 to 7 and you have reissued tickets bearing Nos.407/389226 of Rs.2.25 deno. and 382/586668 of Rs.1.75 deno. which were already issued and accounted at stage No.9 during the first trip and Rs.1.75 deno. ticket was issued and accounted at stage No.4 (Dichpally) during first trip in up-journey, which constitutes misconduct under Reg. 28 (vi)(a)(x) and (xxxii) of APSRTC Employees (Conduct) Reg. 1963”. 4. You have collected the requisite fare of Rs.1.75 ps. each from a batch of two passengers who boarded your bus at Sirnapally and bound for Tanda ex-stages 9 to 8/7 and you have reissued ticket bearing Nos.407/389219 and 407/389220 of Rs.2.25 ps. deno. which were already issued and accounted at stage No.9 (Sirnapally first trip) which constitutes misconduct under Reg. 28 (vi)(a)(x) and (xxxii) of APSRTC Employees (Conduct) Reg. 1963”. 5. You have failed to collect the fare and issue ticket to a passenger found traveling without ticket who boarded your bus at Sirnapally and bound for Dharmaram ex- stages 9 to 3 which constitutes misconduct under Reg. 28 (vi)(a) and (xxxii) of APSRTC Employees (Conduct) Reg. 1963”. 6. You have closed the ticket tray numbers of all denominations upto stage No.8 without completing the above ticket issues which you were performing your duty on 9.5.1992, which constitutes misconduct under Reg. 28(xxv) and (xxxi) of APSRTC Employees (Conduct) Reg. 1963”. Even according to the Labour Court, the charges 1 and 6 have been proved and charges 2 to 5 have not been proved. The reasons furnished for disproving the charges 2 to 5 was that the passengers were not examined in the domestic enquiry and they were examined by the petitioner and they being independent witnesses, their statements made at the time of check ought not to have taken into consideration. It is unfortunate that the Labour Court has taken such a view. Since the management has not filed any writ petition, the said findings recorded by the Labour Court have attained finality. However, as the charges 1 and 6 were proved, it amounts that the petitoner has not issued tickets to the passengers and he had not verified even as to the issuance of tickets against those passengers. In fact, the tickets found with those passengers were reissued one and the passengers who were examined by the Conductor in the enquiry have stated that they have picked up those tickets from the Bus. Unfortunately, the Labour Court accepted this statement. However, I am of the opinion that the charges of reissue of used tickets are very serious in nature and the Labour Court itself has taken a lenient view of the matter and while exercising its powers under Section 11-A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 granted the relief of reinstatement with continuity of service, which cannot be disturbed at this stage. The petitioner does not deserve any relief from this Court. 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: 14.3.2008 DA THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU WRIT PETITION No.12331 of 1999 14.3.2008 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE FOURTEENTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU WRIT PETITION NO : 12331 of 1999 Between: A. Limbadri S/o. Labadri R/o. 2-47, Post & Vill: Dattapoor, Mandal Nandipet, Nizamabad District. ..... PETITIONER AND The Depot Manager, APSRTC Bus Depot; Nizamabad, Nizamabad District. .....RESPONDENT 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 to call for the records from the Labour Court- II, 4th Flor Chandravihar Building, Nampally, Hyderabad in respect of ID. No. 118/93 and issue appropraite writ or direction particularly one in ther nature of WRIT OF CERTIORARI and wuash the impugned award dt. 6-7-95 made in ID.118/93 published on 20-9-95 in so far as not granting the petitioner with the backwages and putting the petitioner at the minimum conductor's scale as arbitrary, unjust, in violation of Articles-14, 16 & 21 of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the Respondent's Corporation to pay the back- wages alongwith restoration of the petitioners increments in the interest of justice and fair play and pass such other order or orders as may be deemed fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.V.NARASIMHA GOUD Counsel for the Respondent No.: SMT.B.G.UMA DEVI The Court made the following :