IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE TWENTY FIRST DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU WRIT PETITION NO : 13836 of 1999 Between: R. Mastanaiah, S/o Meeraiah R-17-74, Bank Colony, SBH Colony, Uppal, Hyderabad ..... PETITIONER AND The Depot Manager A.P.S.R.T.C., Dilsukh Nagar Depot Dilsukhnagar, Hyderabad .....RESPONDENT Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to call for the records from the Labour Court, 2nd Floor, Chandravihar Building, Nampally, Hyderabad; in respect of the I.D.No.106/96 and consequently issue appropriate writ or direction particularly one in the nature of Writ of Certiorari and pass the impugned award dt; 31-12-96 passed in I.D.No.106/96 published on 4- 3-97 in so far as not granting the continuity of service and back wages as arbitrary, unjust, in voilation of Articles 14, 16 & 21 of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the Respondent Corporation to treat the fresh appointment with that of continuity of service along with backwages in the interest of justice and fair play and pass such other order or orders as deemed fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.V.NARASIMHA GOUD Counsel for the Respondent : MR.K.MADHAVA REDDY The Court made the following : ORDER This writ petition is filed challenging the award made in I.D.No.106 of 1996 dated 31.12.1996 on the file of the Labour Court-I, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad insofar as not granting the relief of continuity of service and back wages. Petitioner is the workman and respondent is the Management. It appears that the petitioner was appointed as a Conductor in the year 1985 in the Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation and his services in the said cadre were regularized in the month of November, 1986. Subsequently, when he was conducting the bus on the route 95-K on 22.10.1991 between Koti and Madhuban Colony, a check was exercised at stage No.9/10 and certain cash and ticket irregularities were detected. Basing on the charge memo issued by the checking officials, a charge sheet was issued enumerating the following charges: “1.For having failed to issue tickets to a batch of 5 passengers consisting of 2 adults and 3 chargeable children in spite of having collected, the requisite fare at their boarding place itself being Tadbun and who are found alighting without tickets at Kattedan ex.stages 7/8 to 9/10 which constitutes misconduct in terms of Regulation No. 28 (x) of APSRTC Employees (Conduct) Regulation, 1963. 2.For having violated the rule to issue tickets within one fare stage. 3.For having failed to close the tray Nos. against stage No.8/9 the ticket Nos.02.60ps Rs.1.10ps & Rs.1.50ps denomination. Hence ‘x’ marked by the TTIs.” After conducting a detailed enquiry into the said charges, the petitioner was removed from service on 26.5.1992. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner filed an appeal and the same was rejected on 22.7.1992 and the review petition also met with the same fate on 26.5.1993. Therefore, the petitioner raised a dispute under Section 2-A (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short ‘the Act’) before the Labour Court-I, Hyderabad. Before the Labour Court, it was the case of the petitioner that hardly there was any misconduct attributable to him nor the enquiry was properly conducted. Even assuming that there was some misconduct on the part of the petitioner, removal from service was not warranted and it was disproportionate to that of the misconduct alleged. Respondent-Management filed a detailed counter denying the allegations made by the petitioner. Further, it was stated that the charges are grave in nature and, therefore, no interference was called for by the Labour Court. Before the Labour Court, no oral evidence was adduced on either side. On behalf of the petitioner-workman no documents were marked. However, on behalf of the respondent-Management, Exs.M1 to M18 were marked. After a detailed consideration of the entire material placed before it, the Labour Court came to the conclusion that the enquiry conducted by the Management was just and proper, and the charges framed against the petitioner are proved. However, held that the punishment of removal from service is shockingly disproportionate to that of the misconduct alleged. Under those circumstances, while exercising its powers under Section 11-A of the Act, the Labour Court directed the respondent-Management to reinstate the petitioner afresh as Conductor and the service rendered by him before his termination was directed to be reckoned for the purpose of pensionary benefits. Aggrieved thereby, the present writ petition is filed. The sum and substance of the charge was that the petitioner having collected the requisite fare failed to issue tickets for a batch of five passengers ie., three adults and two chargeable children who boarded the bus at stage No.7/8 and were found alighting the bus at stage No.9/10. Petitioner submitted his explanation stating that the route was notorious and many conductors were assaulted by the passengers on demanding the fare money. On the day in question an altercation had taken place between the passengers and the petitioner and he was trying to pacify them, in the mean while an unconcerned passenger intervened and started quarrelling with him. Therefore, he was taking the bus towards the police station and during that process, TTI entered the bus and conducted check. Therefore, the petitioner could not issue tickets immediately. This explanation was not accepted by the respondents and ultimately, he was removed from service. The charge as stated above is very clear that having collected the fare, he did not issue tickets within one fare stage. Admittedly, the route in question is city route of Hyderabad and as per the operation manual, the conductors were permitted to issue tickets within two fare stages insofar as city was concerned. But, in this case, the charge itself shows that the petitioner violated the rule of issue and start within one fare stage. Be that as it may, it is the case of the respondent that the petitioner failed to issue tickets within one fare stage, which seems to be not correct. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that as per the operation manual, the conductor is supposed to issue tickets within two fare stages. This aspect was not seriously disputed. However, Mr.K.Madhava Reddy, learned counsel appearing for the respondent strenuously contended that the petitioner failed to issue tickets to five passengers and there were no much passengers in the bus at that point of time and therefore, nothing prevented him in issuing tickets. Be that as it may, in the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the opinion that the labour Court while observing that the punishment of dismissal from service is shockingly disproportionate to that of the misconduct, without there being any such serious misconduct previously, ought not to have denied the other benefits while reinstating the petitioner. The petitioner has hardly six years of service before his termination and the misconduct earlier suffered was censure and withholding of three increments without cumulative effect. In the service of a conductor, these punishments are not un-usual and they were very casual and therefore, the same ought not to have been taken into consideration seriously by the labour Court while considering the proportionality of the punishment. Therefore, I am of the opinion that to meet the ends of justice, the award of the labour Court needs to be modified as under: “In the result, respondent-Management is directed to reinstate the petitioner with continuity of service, but without back wages and attendant benefits.” With the above modification of the award, the writ petition is disposed of. No costs. __________ 21-04-2008 rkk ..... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1. The Depot Manager A.P.S.R.T.C., Dilsukh Nagar Depot Dilsukhnagar, Hyderabad 2.2CD copies