THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU WRIT PETITION No. 24496 of 2006 ORDER: This writ petition is directed against the award made in I.D.No.74 of 2004 dated 18.07.2006 on the file of the Labour Court-III, Hyderabad whereunder the petition filed by the petitioner-workman under Section 2-A (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947(for short “the Act”) seeking to set aside the removal order dated 07.11.1995 passed by the management and to direct the management to reinstate him into service with continuity of service, full back wages and all other attendant benefits was dismissed in toto. The petitioner joined the service of the Corporation as conductor in the year 1990. While that being so, it appears, a charge sheet was issued to him on 28.02.1995 narrating as many as fourteen charges. All are similar in nature i.e., tampering of the SRs on various dates. The misconduct was detected when the SRs submitted by the petitioner on various dates earlier found to be altered. The petitioner submitted a detailed explanation. Having not satisfied with the same, the respondents conducted enquiry and after completing formalities an order of removal was passed on 07.11.1995. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner filed an appeal and the review petition, but both were rejected. Questioning the same, the petitioner raised the dispute under Section 2-A (2) of the Act before the Labour Court. It is the case of the petitioner before the Labour Court that enquiry was not properly conducted and absolutely there was no evidence to prove the charges and assuming that there was some misconduct, removal order was passed. Respondents filed a detailed counter denying the allegations made by the petitioner and supporting the order passed by the management. Before the Labour Court none was examined. However, on behalf of the management Exs. M1 to M87 were marked. After elaborate consideration of the entire material placed before it, the Labour Court came to the conclusion that the charges are proved and there is any amount of evidence placed before it to believe the version of the petitioner and therefore, the Labour Court refused to exercise its discretion under Section 11-A of the Act and dismissed the petition. Aggrieved thereby, the present writ petition is filed. Learned counsel for the petitioner strenuously contended that in fact the petitioner himself has complained to the police stating that the tickets were missing and a crime was in fact registered by the police and investigation is going on. At that point of time, the SRs of the petitioner which were submitted earlier were verified and the purported misconduct was unearthed. In fact, two Depot Clerks and one Assistant Depot Clerk were also found guilty and the loss purported to have been caused to the Corporation has been recovered from them. Under those circumstances, the petitioner could not have been found guilty by the Enquiry Officer or the Disciplinary Authority or the Labour Court. Therefore, the impugned award passed by the Labour Court is liable to be set aside. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents supported the award passed by the Labour Court and stated that the charges are very grave in nature and the punishment of removal from service is just and proper and it does not call for any interference by this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. I have given my earnest consideration to the respective submissions made on either side and the material available on record. It is a fact that a crime was registered at the instance of the petitioner as to the loss of tickets. It is also a fact that one Assistant Depot Clerk and two Depot Clerks were also charge sheeted and were punished suitably and the amount purported to have been defrauded was recovered. However, it appears, issuance of charge sheets and initiating disciplinary proceedings against Depot Clerks were neither brought to the notice of the Enquiry Officer nor the Labour Court. Therefore, we cannot blame the Labour Court stating that it did not exercise its discretion properly. However, the learned counsel for the respondents admitted that the Depot Clerks who were charge sheeted for misappropriation were suitably punished and money was recovered from them but, however, it cannot be said that the petitioner was innocent and he did not involve in the misconduct. The Labour Court has categorically gave a finding that the charges are proved in full. However, in view of the facts brought to the notice of this Court, which are admitted by the respondents that three other persons who were involved in the misconduct were punished suitably, but with a minor punishment, I am of the opinion that the petitioner also deserves the same treatment. Under those circumstances, the award passed by the Labour Court is set aside and the respondent/management is directed to reinstate the petitioner with continuity of service but without any back wages and without any attendant benefits. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of. No costs. C.V.RAMULU,J Dt. 18.02.2011 lvl THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU WRIT PETITION No. 24496 of 2006 Dt. 18.02.2011