THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.RAGHURAM WRIT PETITION NO.16200 OF 2000 DT: 02-12-2010 BETWEEN: M.A.RASHEED .. PETITIONER AND THE HON’BLE INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT, HYDERABAD AND ANOTHER .. RESPONDENTS THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.RAGHURAM WRIT PETITION NO.16200 OF 2000 O R D E R : The petitioner entered service of A.P.S.R.T.Corporation as a conductor in 1984. In 1994 while conducting a bus from Suryapet to Kakaravai, the vehicle was checked at stage No.7/8 and serious ticketing irregularities were found committed by the petitioner. Four charges were framed as to mis- punching tickets of Rs.6/- denomination; not closing the ticket book in respect of Rs.7/- denomination and closing the Rs.4.25 and Rs.3.25 denomination tickets and for certain tickets not found in the tray. He was visited with a penalty of removal from service after a process of inquiry. Aggrieved the petitioner approached the Labour Court under section 2A(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act challenging the order of removal. The Labour Court concurred with the departmental authorities on all four charges; for committing the grave misconduct of wrong punching and not accounting the tickets in the S.R. which were duly established. The Labour Court, however, interfered with the quantum of punishment as no misappropriation of the amount of the Corporation by the petitioner was established. Consequently, in exercise of the plenitude of its discretion under section 11A of the Act, the Labour Court modified the punishment of removal to one of reinstatement into service without continuity of service and monetary benefits and denied back wages. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that since no misappropriation of the Corporation funds was established and the Labour Court had modified the punishment but had treated the period of the petitioner’s removal and the earlier service as of no consequence this is also a harsh and disproportionate penalty. In the considered view of this court no interference is called for with the discretion exercised by the Labour Court. The award of the Labour Court dated 25.11.1997 in I.D.No.291 of 1994 (challenged herein) suffers from no infirmity warranting interference in judicial review. The petitioner was found guilty of four charges of serious negligence in the performance of his duties. The petitioner admitted the negligent conduct. Each of the gravemen of the charges constitutes a misconduct within the realm of the APSRTC Employees (Conduct) Regulations, 1963. Therefore, the modified punishment directed by the Labour Court viz., reinstatement without continuity of service and back wages, is not a perverse exercise of discretion by the Labour Court. This court concurs with the Labour Court with regard to finding of the petitioner’s guilt and with the conclusion of the Labour Court that the punishment of reinstatement without back wages or continuity of service, meets the ends of justice. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. No costs. Dt: 02-12-2010. ( G.RAGHURAM, J ) tnb THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.RAGHURAM WRIT PETITION NO.16200 OF 2000 DT: 02-12-2010