THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU W.P.No.18470 of 2005 ORAL ORDER: This writ petition is filed by the Management of APSRTC challenging the award made in I.D.No.86 of 2002 dated 4.2.2005 on the file of the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Warangal, whereunder the Labour Court while setting aside the removal order passed by the petitioner-management on 14.8.2002, directed reinstatement of workman into service with continuity of service and backwages. However, the workman was further inflicted with punishment of postponement of one annual increment with cumulative effect. It appears, first respondent-workman while conducting the Bus on the route Mahabubad to Hyderabad on 4.4.2002, a check was exercised and the checking officials found certain cash and ticket irregularities and on the basis of their report, following charges were framed against the respondent-workman: 1. “For having failed to issue tickets to the boarding passengers at the boarding point itself, close SR and start at stage No.19, which constitutes misconduct. 2. For having failed to collect the fare and issue ticket to a passenger found traveling without ticket who boarded the bus at Hanamkonda and bound for Hyderabad Ex.stages 19 to 31 then the said passenger was shown to you and obtained TPT and issued with ticket bearing No.109/004508 of Rs.50/- and 378/008521 of Rs.2/- denomination tickets, which constitutes misconduct. 3. For having closed the SR of all denomination upto stage No.27 without completing the above ticket issues (charge No.2 passenger) which constitutes misconduct”. After conducting a detailed enquiry into the matter, respondent- workman was removed from service vide order dated 14.8.2002. Aggrieved thereby, he filed a claim petition under Section 2-A(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. It was the case of the respondent-workman that there was no misconduct on his part. It was only by oversight, he could not issue ticket to a single passenger who boarded the bus at stage No.17. In fact, there was no evidence to show that he was involved in serious misconduct requiring removal from service. The petitioner- management filed a detailed counter denying the allegations made by the workman. After a detailed consideration of the entire material placed before it, the Labour Court observed that single passenger under question categorically in his spot statement stated that he did not purchase the ticket by paying fare amount to the workman and the checking officials also admitted that top punch ticket was issued to the passenger after collecting the requisite fare. Under those circumstances, the Labour Court felt that dismissal of the petitioner from service is shockingly disproportionate to that of the misconduct, therefore, while setting aside the removal order, directed the management to reinstate the workman into service with continuity of service and backwages. However, imposed punishment of one increment with cumulative effect. Being aggrieved by the same, the present writ petition is filed. The learned counsel for petitioner-management strenuously contended that the respondent-workman was so negligent that even though the bus had traveled for more than seven stages, he did not detect that the said passenger was ticket-less. The explanation offered by the workman that he gave a general call for taking tickets and enquired as to anybody who has not taken ticket, cannot be countenanced. At every stage, the respondent-workman is bound to verify number of passengers and number of tickets issued and record the same in the SR. This itself would indicate that the respondent-workman was grossly negligent in his duties. Therefore, the charges framed against him were proved beyond any doubt and the Labour Court was not right in holding that punishment of removal from service is shockingly disproportionate to that of the misconduct and granting of reliefs as prayed by the workman by imposing meager punishment of withholding one increment with cumulative effect. Per contra, the learned counsel for respondent-workman supported the award passed by the Labour Court and stated that absolutely neither there was any evidence to show that the workman was negligent in his duties nor there was any misconduct on his part. At the most, it was an inadvertent act in not verifying the number of passengers in the Bus. Even the passenger himself stated that he has not purchased the ticket, by paying the requisite fare amount. Therefore, the award passed by the Labour Court 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 by the learned counsel on either side and perused the impugned award and other material made available on record. May be, the concerned passenger has stated that he did not purchase the ticket by paying the fare amount, but that does not absolve the petitioner from the charge framed against him. May be this is a case where the petitioner did not collect the money and did not issue the ticket, but the fact remains that the Bus had traveled more than seven stages. At every stage, respondent-workman is supposed to verify the number of passengers present in the Bus and make an entry in the SR. In this case, admittedly, the respondent-workman did not do so. It cannot be said that for seven stages, he inadvertently missed the concerned passenger to be counted, nor it can be said that the passenger has avoided taking the ticket. The respondent-workman, who is a well- experienced conductor, could not have committed such blunder. The only duty entrusted to the Conductor is to count the number of passengers and issue tickets to them. This, he did not do so. Apart from that, he closed the SR upto stage No.27. Under those circumstances, I am of the opinion that the award passed by the Labour Court is liable to be modified denying at least 75% back-wages. Therefore, the award passed by the Labour Court in I.D.No.86 of 2002 dated 4.2.2005 is modified to the following effect: “In the result, the removal order passed on 14.8.2002 is set aside and the respondent-workman is entitled for reinstatement with continuity of service and 25% of back- wages.” However, it is made clear that the punishment of stoppage of one increment with cumulative effect is set aside. The writ petition is accordingly allowed. No order as to costs. ______________ C.V.RAMULU, J Date: 25.1.2008 DA THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU W.P.No.18470 of 2005 25.1.2008 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. RAMULU W.P.No.18470 of 2005 Date: 25th January, 2008 Between: The Depot Manager, APSRTC, Mahabubabad, Warangal district. .. Petitioner And G.S.Narayana & another. .. Respondents