THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO WRIT PETITION No. 12 OF 2006 O R D E R: This Writ Petition is directed against the award dated 20.12.2001 passed by the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Anantapur in I.D. No. 198 of 1999, raised by the writ petitioner. The writ petitioner has been proceeded against as a measure of discipline, pursuant to a check that was carried out by the Regional Enforcement Squad, Kurnool, on a bus conducted by the writ petitioner belonging to Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation on 11.08.1998. The check revealed certain cash and ticket irregularities. The checking officials have also recorded the statements from the passengers, in support of the allegation that in spite of collecting the fare, the writ petitioner had failed to issue the tickets to certain passengers. Further, when the spot explanation of the writ petitioner was called for, she denied to give any such statement explaining her conduct. It was also found that eight tickets of denomination Rs.5/- which were already punched at stage No. 1 were re-issued to eight passengers by collecting a fare of Rs.2.50 only. The writ petitioner has also failed to close the statistical return, showing therein the particulars of the tickets sold by her. For these alleged misconducts committed by the writ petitioner, a domestic enquiry was conducted. During the enquiry, one of the Travelling Ticket Inspectors of the squad which carried out the check and the driver of the bus were examined on behalf of the management. The petitioner has cross-examined both these witnesses and she has also produced one Shaik Mohammad Hussain and Smt. Madakka as witnesses on her behalf. Upon an analysis of the available evidence on record, the Enquiry Officer found her guilty of all the three charges levelled against her. Upon being satisfied with the findings of the Enquiry Officer, the Depot Manager, the competent authority, passed orders on 05.01.1999 terminating the service of the writ petitioner. The appellate as well as the reviewing authorities have confirmed the said order on 17.03.1999 and 07.04.1999 respectively. Hence, the writ petitioner has raised the aforementioned Industrial Dispute, in terms of Section 2A(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court has carefully assessed the evidence that was collected during the domestic enquiry, which revealed that at the time of check, there were 37 passengers in the bus, of which eight passengers were issued tickets, which were issued in the earlier trip. The passengers have given a statement, vouching that they boarded the bus at Nagulapuram and they were to go to Markapuram. The petitioner has issued tickets to these passengers, after collecting fare of Rs.2.50 ps. only as against Rs.5/-. Since these tickets were found to have been issued in an earlier trip, it amounts to re-cycling of tickets once again by the writ petitioner. In the process, the fare collected by the petitioner would not go to the kitty of the Corporation, but would be appropriated by her. In normal circumstance, such a blameworthy conduct would have fetched a punishment of removal from service justifiably. For, the respondent Corporation would be able to survive from the revenue generated by way of fare collected from the passengers and by way of collection of freight charges for ferrying the cargo. The main part of the Corporation’s revenue comes from collection of the fare from the passengers. If a Conductor of the bus were to exhibit dishonest intentions so as to cause dent to the revenue of the Corporation and also correspondingly seek to benefit oneself, it is a major misconduct warranting imposition of a major punishment. No exception can be taken thereto. The punishment of termination from service, in such circumstances, cannot be described to be disproportionate to the proven misconduct. However, a perusal of the award, particularly at page 7, reveals that the Labour Court has proceeded to construe the writ petitioner to be a casual conductor by the time the order of termination was passed against her on 05.01.1999. It is no doubt true that the writ petitioner has been initially engaged as a casual conductor on 22.01.1997. By the time her services came to be terminated on 05.01.1999, she was penalized on a number of occasions for certain irregularities committed by her, while performing her duties. On two different occasions, her annual grade increments were withheld, while on three different occasions, recoveries were effected from her salary for the deficit cash deposit. Be that as it may, the Labour Court has overlooked the fact that the Regional Manager, Kurnool Region of the Corporation passed orders on 07.04.1998 appointing the writ petitioner as a Conductor Grade II in the pay scale of Rs.2320-5058/- in terms of Regulation 17 of the Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation Employees’ (Recruitment) Regulations, 1966 with probationary rights with effect from 01.01.1998. This exercise was carried out after decasualising the services of several of the casual conductors. In the said proceeding, dated 07.04.1998, the name of the writ petitioner figured at Sl. No. 16 of 40 names included therein. Pursuant to the orders of the Regional Manager, Kurnool, the Depot Manager, in turn, issued an office order on 20.04.1998 putting the writ petitioner on probation with effect from 01.01.1998. Subject to the usual conditions, namely that should any adverse fact come to the notice of the Corporation during verification of the antecedents of the candidate, or if it is found that any of the certificates produced by the candidate were found to be non- genuine or improper at a later stage, they are liable to be discharged. Thus, the status of the writ petitioner has undergone a modification by virtue of the orders passed by the Regional Manager, Kurnool on 07.04.1998 regularizing her services with effect from 01.01.1998. Hence, by the date of termination of her services on 05.01.1999, the writ petitioner was not functioning as a casual conductor but as a regular Conductor Grade II in the service of the respondent Corporation. Because of this error committed by the Labour Court, the ultimate conclusion reached by it, which is to the following effect, is also erroneous: “ In the result, an award is passed setting aside the termination order, and the respondent is directed to re-appoint her as and when casual vacancy arises. The petitioner is not entitled to any monetary or service benefits for her past service.” From a perusal of the award, it is manifest that the Labour Court has preferred to exercise the discretion available with it, in terms of Section 11-A of the Act in favour of the writ petitioner. Consequently, the Labour Court directed the Corporation to reengage the services of the writ petitioner as a casual conductor. It is a highly debatable point as to whether if the Labour Court were to notice that the writ petitioner was not a casual conductor by the time her services came to be terminated, it would have still exercised the discretion in terms of Section 11-A of the Act and would have ordered for her reinstatement or reengagement by the Corporation. May be, in a mistaken notion, the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court may have exercised the discretion. Unfortunately, this erroneous conclusion of the Labour Court has literally lulled the Corporation into silence and since it is not seriously aggrieved by the direction to reengage the writ petitioner as a casual conductor, they have not preferred to challenge the error of exercise of jurisdiction indulged in by the Labour Court by instituting a Writ Petition in this Court. Therefore, the erroneous conclusion reached by the Labour Court has caused prejudice, in a way, to the Corporation also, but however, the Labour Court has apparently struck a balance between the competing claims of the workman on the one hand and the Corporation on the other, by directing no benefits to percolate to the writ petitioner workman for her past services as well as for the interregnum period. That perhaps would have caused enough of financial distress to the writ petitioner. The fact remains that the writ petitioner was also not very diligent in prosecuting her case. While the award was passed on 20.12.2001, and was also published immediately thereafter, she quietly took more than four years of time for instituting this Writ Petition. The fact that she has not bothered to institute the Writ Petition for nearly four years also, must be put against her. Possibly, the writ petitioner having been reengaged in the month of June 2004 by the respondent Corporation in terms of the award passed by the Labour Court in I.D. No. 198 of 1999 also must have played a significant role for the delay in her approaching this Court. Therefore, keeping all these factors in mind and taking into account the fact that from 22.02.2005 onwards, the services of the writ petitioner have been regularly utilized by the Corporation, it would be appropriate to direct the respondent Corporation, as a measure of modification of the award passed by the Labour Court, to treat the writ petitioner to have been reinstated to duty as a Conductor Grade-II to the service of the respondent Corporation with effect from 22.02.2005. The writ petitioner shall not be entitled to the benefit of either her past service or any monetary benefit flowing from setting aside the order of termination dated 05.01.1999. The interregnum period between 05.01.1999 and 22.02.2005 shall be treated as absence from service. Accordingly, this Writ Petition is allowed only to the extent of modifying the directions issued by the Labour Court to reengage the services of the writ petitioner as a casual conductor, instead the respondent Corporation will treat the writ petitioner to have been reinstated back to duty as a conductor Grade II with effect from 22.02.2005 and her monetary claims for any differential amount of wages will be regulated from the said date. This exercise may be completed within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and if the writ petitioner is entitled to be paid any difference of wages between what had been paid to her treating her as a casual conductor with effect from 22.02.2005 and reinstating her as a conductor Grade II with effect from 22.02.2005 be calculated and paid to her. It is of course open, as contended by the learned Standing Counsel for the Corporation, to examine the antecedents of the writ petitioner and genuineness of the certificates produced by her which exercise the Corporation would have undertaken before declaring any regular employee to have completed the period of probation prescribed. No costs. ---------------------------------- (NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO, J) 27th January 2011 ksld