IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE NINETH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR WRIT PETITION No.15866 OF 2001 Between: K.M. Iqbal. - - - Petitioner. AND 1. The Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Warangal District, Rep. by its Chairman-cum-Presiding Officer. 2. A.P.S.R.T.C. Warangal Depot, Hanamkonda, Warangal District, Rep. by its Depot Manager. - - - Respondents. The Court made the following: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR WRIT PETITION No.15866 OF 2001 JUDGMENT: The Petitioner, who was working as Conductor in the second respondent’s Corporation-APSRTC seeks to challenge the Award in I.D. No.198 of 1992, dated 04-09-1995, passed by the Industrial Tribunal, Warangal, to the extent it held that petitioner is not entitled to back wages. The relevant facts of the case are that the petitioner was charged on the basis of a check report of having committed ticketing irregularities and misbehaved with the checking officials. The charges were enquired into under a domestic enquiry and on the evidence produced, charges were held proved. The petitioner questioned the said punishment before the Industrial Tribunal, Warangal, in the present I.D. No.198 of 1992 and the Industrial Tribunal, has modified the punishment of removal to that of reinstatement with continuity of service, but without back wages and substituted the punishment of forfeiture of two increments without cumulative effect. The impugned award dated 04-09-1995 is questioned in this Writ Petition, as mentioned above. Heard the learned counsel for both the parties. The Industrial Tribunal, firstly held that the charge as to misbehaviour with the checking officials was subsequently added and was not mentioned in the first raised charges when they were framed on 01-07-1992. The Industrial Tribunal was therefore not satisfied with the sufficiency of evidence, which resulted in the disciplinary authority imposing punishment of removal. Consequently, it had interfered with the said punishment and had substituted the said punishment by ordering reinstatement without back wages and that two increments without cumulative effect to be withheld. Apparently, the said order is implemented by the respondent but the petitioner approached this Court in 2001 questioning the said award dated 04- 09-1995. After hearing both the learned counsel and particularly after hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner who has attempted to further develop over findings of the Labour Court to the extent they are favourable to him, I am not inclined to further modify the award. The award shows that the petitioner was subjected to disciplinary enquiry on three distinct charges, which includes a charge of misbehaving with the checking officials. The Industrial Tribunal was not prepared to accept the said charge as genuine one and has described it, that it shows malafides on the part of the management on an assumption that the said charge was originally not framed. The contention of the petitioner in respect of the said charge, which appealed to the Industrial Tribunal, was however not substantiated. Even with respect to other two charges the Tribunal has failed to keep in mind that it’s jurisdiction is only limited and it cannot examine the record of the disciplinary authority as an Appellate Authority. The checking officials have already stated that the petitioner protested against framing of charges whereby there is no reason to disbelieve the third charge alleging misbehaviour by the petitioner with the checking officials. On the facts and circumstances of the case, therefore, though the Tribunal had jurisdiction to examine the proportionality of punishment, it could not have assessed the record of the disciplinary authority as an Appellate Authority. To that extent, I am not able to agree with the learned counsel for the petitioner that he is entitled to any further relief, particularly, as the award is questioned after six years, which remains unexplained. The petitioner, admittedly, has not worked for the period for which he is now seeking back wages. Even the Tribunal below did not grant back wages to him, but substituted the punishment to withholding of two increments without cumulative effect. There cannot be automatic award of back wages, even if the Tribunal disagrees with the punishment imposed and modifies the said punishment. I am therefore not inclined to interfere with the impugned award in question. The Writ Petition is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. ________________________ VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR, J. Dt.09-12-2010. DSH