THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM W.P. No. 16133 of 2000 Dated. 02–12-2010 Between: Md. Yaseen Ali …Petitioner Vs. 1.The Chairman, Additional Industrial Tribunal-II, Hyderabad. 2. The Depot Manager, APSRTC, Narketpally Depot, Nalgonda District. …Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM W.P.No. 16133 of 2000 ORAL ORDER: Aggrieved by the award of the Industrial Tribunal-II, Hyderabad, dated 06-08-1999 in I.D.No. 149 of 1998 rejecting the petitioner’s petition filed under Section 2(A)(2) of the Industrial Disputes (Amended) Act, 1987 (for short ‘the Act’) wherein the petitioner challenged the order dated 04-11-1994 inflicting on him the penalty of removal from service from the post of Conductor, is this writ petition filed. The petitioner was appointed as Conductor on a regular basis in March, 1984. While he was conducting the bus bearing No. AEZ 1218 on route Hyderabad to Lakshmapur on 23-05- 1994 and the bus was making a return journey from Hyerabad to Lakshmapur via Ramannapet, the vehicle was checked and serious ticketing irregularities were found. The petitioner was issued a charge sheet dated 24-05-1994. Eight charges were framed viz.,--- (a) For having instigated the passengers in the bus and not allowed the T.T.Is to perform their duty when they have detected certain cash and ticket irregularities while conducting the bus no. AEZ 1218 on the route Lakshmapur-Hyderabad on 23-05-1994 constituting a serious misconduct; (b) For having misbehaved with the T.T.Is when they asked the petitioner to receive the requisite fare amount collected from the ticket less passengers and retaliating with the T.T.Is on 23-05-1994, a serious misconduct; (c) For having refused to offer spot explanation and not allowing the passengers to offer their statements, a serious misconduct; (d) For having failed to observe the rule of ‘Issue and Start’ , a serious misconduct; (e) For having collected an amount of Rs.1-50 Paise each from seven (7) individual passengers totaling to Rs.10-50 Paise at their boarding point itself and failing to issue tickets to the passengers, who were alighting at Neerneula stage No.19 having boarded at Ramannapet Stage No.18, but punching tickets bearing Nos. 686/702393 to 399 of Rs.1-50 Paise denomination on the stage Nos. 18/20 instead of 18/19 after seeing the T.T.Is, a serious misconduct; (f) For having arranged one person who collected an amount of Rs.60-00 from 30 individual passengers at the boarding point itself and bound for Shobanadripuram stage No.20, who boarded the bus at Ramannapet Stage No.18 and kept the entire amount with such person as per the petitioner’s instructions, a serious misconduct; (g) For having arranged one person who collected an amount of Rs.22-00 from eight (8) individual passengers at the boarding point itself and bound for Laxmapur stage No.20/21 who boarded the bus at Ramannapet stage No.18 and kept the entire amount with such person on instructions of the petitioner, a serious misconduct; and (h) For having failed to close the tray numbers of all the denominations in the S.R. bearing No. 1244029 dated 23-05-1994 against stage No.19 until the point of check constituting also a serious misconduct. The petitioner submitted his explanation on 08-06-1994. A domestic inquiry was conducted into the charges leveled against the petitioner and the petitioner participated in the inquiry along with his co-workmen. The inquiry report was submitted on 24-04-1994 finding the petitioner guilty of all the charges. Eventually, the disciplinary authority concurred with the inquiring authority and provisionally concluded to impose the punishment of removal from service and issued a show cause notice dated 18-10-1994. The petitioner submitted his explanation on 24-10- 1994 and the punishment of removal from service was imposed on 04-11-1994. In the Industrial Dispute, on 24-04-1998 the Labour Court framed an issue and held that the domestic inquiry was vitiated. The respondent-management was given an opportunity to adduce evidence to prove the charges leveled against the petitioner. On behalf of the management, one of the TTIs was examined as M.W.1 and Ex.M.1 to M.15 marked and on behalf of the charged employee, the petitioner was examined himself as W.W.1, but marked no documents in substantiation of his defense. The petitioner contended before the Labour Court that when the bus arrived at Ramannapet on 23-05-1994, there was a heavy traffic as it was a shandy day and the petitioner was unable to control the traffic and issue tickets at Ramannapet stage No.18 itself and therefore though he could not issue tickets to all the passengers; he asked the driver to start the bus and he continued to issue the tickets on way to stage No.19. On the way, however the bus was stopped by the passengers and as they could not find space within the bus, the additional passengers boarded the top of the bus and thereafter the bus commenced its journey but stopped after some time for enabling the petitioner to issue tickets. While the petitioner was enquiring about their destination and requested them to pay the fare amount, the checking officials came on a motor cycle and took away the tray of the petitioner and there is no irregularity committed by the petitioner. It was also alleged by the petitioner before the Labour Court though not asserted in the domestic enquiry including in the explanation submitted after the show cause notice, that the attitude of one of the TTI’s Jagannadham (M.W.1) was improper towards the passengers and the passengers wanted to complain against Jagannadham. M.W.1 in his testimony stated that at about 5-00 P.M. on 23-05-1994, the bus AEZ 1218 was checked at sage No.19 and ticketing irregularities were detected. Thirty eight (38) passengers were found on the top of the bus and the rest of the passengers were heavily packed inside the bus. They were informed by the passengers that a friend of the petitioner (charged employee) was traveling on the top of the bus and had collected fares from all the 38 passengers and retained the same with him as per the instructions of the petitioner. Even inside the bus seven (7) passengers were not issued tickets even after collecting fares. The petitioner also punched the tickets wrongly to stage No. 20 instead of stage No.19, but after commencement of check. The petitioner did not also close the SR for any of the denominations of tickets at stage No.19. M.W.1 further testified that when he asked for a statement from all the ticketless passengers, the charged employee shouted at him and the other TTIs and passengers and asked the passengers not to issue statements. The driver also refused to give a statement. The petitioner refused to furnish a spot statement. The fare amount of 38 passengers was retained by Mr. Narasimha (the agent of the petitioner) who took money and when that money was tendered to the petitioner during the process of check, he refused to accept it. The petitioner also grew wild and refused to conduct the remaining service of the bus and threw away the cash bag. Later however the petitioner accepted the cash collected from the 38 passengers by Mr. Narasimha and came forward to continue the service by taking the cash bag from the witness Jagannadham. M.W.1 further stated that in the melee, while checking the bus the petitioner and the driver of the bus permitted some of the ticket less passengers to escape through the driver’s door. The petitioner also refused to affix his signature to the check sheet. The driver also refused to do so. A special report was therefore lodged. M.W.1 further testified that a charge memo could not be issued on the spot because of the disturbance at that time. The charge memo was therefore prepared and served on 24-05-1994 and transmitted to the District Manager. In response, the petitioner as W.W.1 testified before the Labour Court that though he had committed no irregularities a false case was foisted against him since he did not agree to tender the bribe demanded by the checking officials. This defense is an improvement and was not stated either in the explanation in the domestic enquiry or in the explanation submitted pursuant to the show cause notice issued before the order of penalty was imposed in the domestic enquiry. The petitioner further contended that the check was not conducted at stage No. 19. The Labour Court on an analysis of the evidence held that the contention on behalf of the petitioner that a check was not conducted at stage No.19 is misconceived and the evidence of M.W.1 and the entries made in S.R. (Ex.M.1) establish that the check was made at stage No.19 when the passengers were alighting at that stage. The Labour Court was inclined to accept the testimony of M.W.1 since it was not the case of the petitioner either alleged or established that there is any animus between the petitioner and checking officials. The Labour Court also disbelieved the improved defense of the petitioner that the checking officials demanded illegal gratification from him, particularly in view of the fact that no such allegation was made at any stage in the domestic enquiry. No suggestion was also put to M.W.1 during the course of domestic enquiry that he and other checking officials ever demanded bribe from the petitioner and which demand the petitioner declined to accomodate. The Labour Court on the analysis of evidence before it found the petitioner guilty of all the charges alleged, relying on the testimony of M.W.1 who was found not having any animus towards the petitioner for foisting a false charge and in the circumstances and having regard to the seriousness and gravity of the charges established against the petitioner came to the conclusion that the punishment of removal from service is not disproportionate and no interference is called for. Sri S.A.K. Mynoddin, learned counsel for the petitioner would strenuously contend that there are instructions issued by the APSRTC for recording evidence of the passengers and witnesses by obtaining the full name of passengers and witnesses for attestation of the statement of passengers and witnesses; instructions which ordain that evidence of passengers and witnesses should be obtained even though staff involved admit their guilt and that the signature of the conductor should be obtained in the S.R.. As none of these were followed, there is no legal evidence to infer the petitioner’s guilt of the charges is the singular contention strenuously addressed by Sri Mynoddin, on behalf of the petitioner. A perusal of the elaborate judgment of the Labour Court discloses that there was adequate explanation by the employer for not having followed these instructions. These are instructions which ought to be followed while recording evidence after a check was conducted on a traveling bus where irregularities or illegalities of the employees driving or conducting the bus occurs. However, as stated in the testimony of M.W.1, the traveling ticket inspector which was accepted by the Labour Court, the petitioner and with the co-operation of the driver as well prevented the passengers from giving statements. The petitioner also refused to give a spot statement or sign in the check sheet or the SR and also threw the cash bag when accosted with the illegalities. There was overload in the bus and demonstrably there were 38 passengers on top of the bus. It is not clear to this Court as to how the petitioner/conductor permitted the bus to start when passengers had boarded the top of the bus as well. Perhaps the APSRTC at that time was content with the additional revenues derived even from passengers on top of the bus. Be that as it may. As recording of evidence on the spot could not be pursued as per the instructions of the APSRTC in such transactions, on account of the petitioner’s obstructionist tactics as testified by M.W.1, no illegality has been committed by not following the procedure. It was impossible to follow that procedure. The petitioner never alleged any illegal conduct on the part of checking officials nor had he alleged that the checking officials had demanded illegal gratification and since he refused to accept that demand a false case was foisted against him, either in his explanation to the charge memo or in his explanation to the show cause notice. The non-issue of tickets has been established, the violation of the rule ‘issue, close and start” i.e., issue the tickets, close the SR and start the bus, a non- derogatory rule was clearly violated by the petitioner, as found by the Labour Court. On the aforesaid analysis, this Court finds no error in the application of law, any perversity in the appreciation of evidence or irrationality in the conclusions recorded by the Labour Court, warranting interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. There are no merits. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed, but in the circumstances without costs. __________________________ JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM Dated: 02-12-2010 Pvks/*