SRI JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU WRIT PETITION No.3700 of 2005 ORDER: This writ petition is directed against an award made in I.D.No.92 of 2003 dated 24/08/2004 on the file of the Labour Court-I, Hyderabad, whereunder the removal order passed by the management was set aside and the respondent-workman was directed to be reinstated into service with 50% back wages and other attendant benefits. The management is the petitioner. Respondent No.1 is the workman. It appears respondent No.1 was appointed as a conductor in APSRTC with effect from 14/05/1972 and while he was conducting bus bearing registration No.AP9Z 4699, on 19/09/2002, on the route No.205-B from Women’s College-Koti-Balajiguda, the checking officials exercised a check at stage No.14, Abdullapurmet, at about 9-15 PM and detected certain cash and ticket irregularities. Basing on the material furnished by the checking officials, the first respondent was placed under suspension, on 26/09/2002, and a charge sheet was issued enumerating the following charge: “For having failed to issue ticket a passenger in spite of collection of Rs.2.50 ps. at boarding point itself towards fare i.e., Abdullpurmet and found alighting without ticket at Abdullapur village ex-stages 13 to 14 on 19/09/2002 which constitutes misconduct under Regulation 28 (vi) (a) of APSRTC Employees conduct Reg.1963.” The first respondent submitted a detailed explanation to the charge sheet. However, having not satisfied with the explanation of the first respondent, the petitioner appointed an enquiry officer to conduct enquiry into the charges in detail. The enquiry officer, having conducting enquiry, submitted a report, holding the first respondent guilty of the charges. On the basis of the report of the enquiry officer, the disciplinary authority after completing the formalities and calling for explanation, passed order of removal dated 26/02/2003. Aggrieved by the same, the first respondent preferred an appeal before the Divisional Manager and the same was rejected on 07/04/2003. Thereafter, the petitioner raised a dispute under Section 2-A (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act (for short ‘the Act’) before the Labour Court-I, Hyderabad, in I.D.No.92 of 2003. It was the case of the first respondent before the Labour Court that neither the enquiry officer nor the disciplinary authority properly conducted the enquiry. In fact, the charges are not proved and even assuming that the charges are proved, the punishment of removal from service was disproportionate to that of the misconduct. Before the Labour Court, the management filed a detailed counter denying the allegations made by respondent No.1. Though none was examined on behalf of the petitioner and no documents were marked, on behalf of the respondents Exs.M-1 to M-23 were marked. After a detailed examination of the entire material available before it, the labour Court came to the conclusion that the enquiry conducted by the management was proper and valid and further the charges framed against respondent No.1 were proved. However, it felt that the punishment of removal from service was not proportionate to that of the misconduct alleged and thus directed reinstatement of the first respondent with 50% of the back wages and continuity of service with all other attendant benefits. Aggrieved thereby, the present writ petition is filed. Learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri K.Madhava Reddy, strenuously contended that the charge as noticed above is very serious. The only duty cast on a conductor is to collect money and to issue proper tickets. In the present case, respondent No.1 failed to issue tickets to the passengers in spite of collecting Rs.2.50ps. at the boarding point itself i.e., at Abdullapurmet who were found alighting without ticket at Abdullapurmet ex-stage 12-14, and apart from that the labour Court, having found that the charges are proved, ought not have granted the relief of reinstatement with continuity of service and 50% back wages and other attendant benefits and further granting of 12% interest per annum is all arbitrary and illegal. Whereas the learned counsel for the respondent supported the award passed by the labour Court and stated that alllegation constitute a minor misconduct, therefore, the Labour Court in its wisdom while exercising the powers under Section 11-A of the Act directed reinstatement of respondent No.1 with continuity of service. The said award passed by the labour Court does not call for interference by this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. I am of the opinion that the charge as such is very serious and the same is proved; this is one aspect. Secondly, at para 12 of the award, the labour Court noticed that the past conduct of the petitioner was not good. He was censured and warned several times, suspended and removed from service thrice. Having noticed this, it is unfortunate that the labour Court has granted relief of reinstatement with continuity of service and 50% of back wages only on the ground that this was not the part of the charge. However, this can be taken into consideration while considering the merits under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by this Court. Once we look into the past conduct of the petitioner, he was removed thrice for the similar misconduct earlier. But the labour Court has taken a very lenient view of the matter, which is not warranted in the facts and circumstances of the case. However, the learned counsel for the petitioner states that the respondent has already been reinstated into service. Under those circumstances, the award passed by the labour Court is modified to following effect. The first respondent is entitled for reinstatement with continuity of service but without any back wages and without any attendant benefits. The period for which the first respondent was out of service shall be counted only for the purpose of retiral benefits. The Writ Petition is accordingly allowed. No order as to costs. __________________ JUSTICE C.V. RAMULU 08th April, 2010 SKM