HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.1489 OF 2004 ORDER: The 1st respondent (for short ‘respondent’) is a Tyre Mechanic in Achampet Depot of APSRTC. On 12-11-1999, the Security Guard of the Depot found some tyre patches in the dickey of the Scooter of the respondent. Alleging that the respondent resorted to acts of theft, the 1st petitioner issued a charge sheet on 29-11-1999. The respondent filed his explanation, stating that somebody else may have put the patches in his Scooter and that he is not guilty of the charges. Enquiry Officer was appointed and taking the report submitted by him into account, the 1st petitioner passed an order, dated 30-03-2000, directing removal of the respondent from the service. 2. After exhausting departmental remedies, the respondent filed I.D. No.192 of 2001 before the Labour Court – I, Hyderabad, under Section 2A (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short ‘ID Act’). Through its award, dated 19-08-2003, the Labour Court has set aside the order of removal, directed reinstatement of the respondent into service without back wages and attendant benefits, but with continuity of service. Petitioners feel aggrieved by the award. 3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned counsel for the respondent. 4. The charges framed against the respondent read as under: “1. For having committed the theft of tyre patches (BP-4 patches E-9 and B.P-6 patches E.14) material on 12-11-1999 at about 13-45 hrs. which is misconduct under Reg.28(x) of APSRTC (Conduct) Regulations 1963. 2. For having left the work premises without permission from the shift supervisor though your duty hours were upto 15.00 hrs. on that day which is misconduct under Reg.28 (xxxii) of APSRTC Employees (Conduct) Reg.1963.” 5. The respondent did not deny that the tyre patches were found in his scooter. The explanation offered by him was that somebody else may have put the patches in the dickey of the Scooter. Not only the Enquiry Officer and the 1st petitioner, but also the Labour Court did not find any truth in that plea. The Labour Court has invoked its jurisdiction under Section 11A of the ID Act and granted the relief as indicated above. 6. Charge of theft is serious in its nature, irrespective of the value of the goods that are said to have been stolen. The incidents would only indicate that the concerned employee is prone to commit such acts and what is found is only one of them. The Labour Court also took the view that the explanation offered by the respondent cannot be accepted. While granting relief in exercise of power under Section 11A of the ID Act, the Labour Court ought to have been cautious, in protecting the interests of the Corporation, even while providing livelihood to the 1st respondent. This Court is of the view that the relief of continuity of service can be confined to the one for terminal benefits. 7. Hence, the Writ Petition is partly allowed modifying the award of the Labour Court to the effect that the respondent shall be reinstated into service without back wages and attendant benefits. The relief of the continuity of service shall be limited for purpose of calculating the retirement benefits. In case, this modification warrants reduction of pay scale of the respondent, the petitioners shall not be entitled to recover the difference of pay, on that account. There shall be no order as to costs. ____________________ L. NARASIMHA REDDY, J December 30, 2010. KTL