THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU WRIT PETITION No.766 of 2003 ORDER: This writ petition is directed against the award dated 30.03.2002 passed in I.D.No.209 of 2000 on the file of the Industrial Tribunal-cum- Labour Court, Anantapur. Petitioner is the workman and the 1st respondent Corporation is the management. It appears, the workman was appointed as Conductor in the respondent Corporation in the year 1991. While that being so, in the periodical inspection of the S.Rs. of the workman, certain cash and ticket irregularities were found in the S.Rs and thereupon a charge sheet was issued to the workman asking for his explanation for the irregularities committed by him. Since the explanation submitted by the workman was found to be not satisfactory, a detailed enquiry was conducted on the said allegations and after completion of all the formalities, the disciplinary authority finally passed the order dated 16.02.1999, removing the workman from service. Aggrieved thereby, an appeal was filed by the workman and it was dismissed on 01.06.1999. Thereafter, the workman preferred review before the Regional Manager, who, by his order dated 23.06.1999, dismissed the said review. Subsequently, the workman filed claim statement under Section 2-A (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act before the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Anantapur. Before the Labour Court, it was the case of the workman that he neither committed the irregularities as enumerated in the charge sheet nor the enquiry was properly conducted and that the findings of the disciplinary authority are not inconformity with the evidence on record, therefore, the termination order passed against the workman is bad and disproportionate to the alleged misconduct. The case of the management before the Labour Court was that the workman resorted to misappropriate the legitimate revenues of the Corporation by altering the tickets, that the past record of the workman was very bad and that the charges leveled against the workman were established, therefore, the workman was not entitled to the relief sought by him. After considering the entire material placed before it, the Labour Court, having found that the misconduct of the workman caused loss to the Corporation, held that the removal from service is not disproportionate to the misconduct of the workman and that the findings of the disciplinary authority are correct, therefore, rejected the claim of the workman, by the impugned award dated 30.03.2002. Aggrieved thereby, the present writ petition is filed. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the workman, being an honest conductor, in fact remitted Rs.80/- that could not be returned to the passengers due to non-availability of change. He further submitted that the charges are trivial in nature and even if they are proved, that does not require the punishment of removal from service. Learned counsel appearing for the 1st respondent submitted that the past record of the workman is very bad. Learned counsel further submitted that as the workman suffered more than eight punishments for similar misconducts, he deserves the punishment of removal from service as was imposed by the disciplinary authority and later confirmed by the Labour Court. 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. Having gone through the impugned award, I am of the considered opinion that the Labour Court has rightly appreciated the facts and circumstances of the case and rightly found that the enquiry conducted by the management and the punishment imposed are perfectly valid and justified and the same do not call for any interference of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Thus, the writ petition is devoid of merits and is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. _____________ C.V.RAMULU,J 03.02.2011 v v