THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU WRIT PETITION No.7079 of 2005 Dated: 11.06.2010 Between: Md. Khader. .. Petitioner. And Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Warangal, rep. by its Chairman-cum- Presiding Officer, And another. .. Respondents. ORDER: This writ petition is directed against the award dated 15.03.2004 passed by the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Warangal, in I.D.No.51 of 2002. Petitioner is the workman and respondent No.2 is the management. It appears, while the petitioner, who was working as a Conductor in Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation (for short ‘the Corporation’), was conducting a bus bearing No.AP 9 Z 679 on 19.08.2001, on the route Bhadrahalam to Manuguru, a check was exercised by the checking officials at stage No.8/7 and they found certain cash and ticket irregularities committed by the petitioner. Thereupon, the petitioner was issued with a charge sheet enumerating the following charges: (1) For having violated the rule ‘Issue and Start’ which is a misconduct under Regulation No.28 (vi) (a) of APSRTC Employees Conduct Regulation, 1963. (2) For having collected an amount of Rs.3/- from a passenger who boarded your bus at Sarapaka and bound for Thallagommuru ex-stages 8 to 8/7 and issued ticket bearing No.317/846621 of Rs.3/- denomination. At the time of alighting the passenger at Thallagommuru, the above ticket was taken from the passenger and the same ticket was issued to a lady passenger, who boarded your bus at Sarapaka and bound for Ramachandrapuram ex-stages 8 to 7, which is a serious misconduct under Regulation No.28 (xxiii) of APSRTC Employees (Conduct) Regulation, 1963.” After conducting a detailed enquiry and completing all the formalities, the petitioner was removed from service, by order dated 05.02.2002. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner filed I.D.No.51 of 2002 before the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Warangal. It was the case of the petitioner before the Labour Court that he has not committed any irregularities while discharging his duties and that the punishment of removal from service is shockingly disproportionate to that of the alleged misconduct and, therefore, he shall be reinstated into service by setting aside the removal order passed against him. It was the case of the management that as the enquiry officer found all the charges as proved, the punishment of removal is just and reasonable. Before the Labour Court, no oral and documentary evidence was adduced on behalf of the workman. On behalf of the management, none were examined, but documents Exs.M1 to M19 were marked. The Labour Court, after considering the matter in detail, came to the conclusion that the enquiry conducted by the management was proper and valid. So far as the merits of the case are concerned, on re- appreciation of the evidence, held that charge No.1, which is framed for failure to follow the rule ‘issue and start’, is proved, and charge No.2 to the extent of not collecting fare and not issuing ticket to a lady passenger is proved, however re-issue of ticket by collecting the fare is not established. Thus, the Labour Court, having found that the major punishment of removal from service is disproportionate to that of proved misconduct, had set aside the removal order and directed the management to reinstate the workman into service as ‘Fresh Conductor’ in regular scale, without continuity of service, backwages and attendant benefits, by the impugned award dated 15.03.2004. Aggrieved thereby, the present writ petition is filed. Learned counsel for the petitioner strenuously contended that when the charge to the extent of re-issue of ticket is not proved, the Labour Court ought not to have denied the continuity of service, attendant benefits and backwages. Per contra, Sri P.Sridhar, learned Standing counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent-management, submitted that though this is a case of grave misconduct committed by the petitioner by re-issue of the ticket, the Labour Court gave its own finding and interfered with the order of removal, and the petitioner does not deserve any further relief to be granted by this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. I have given my earnest consideration to the submissions made by the learned counsel and perused the impugned award and other material placed made available on record. According to the workman, the lady passenger was not issued with ticket as she stated that she was having pass, and a passenger, who boarded at Sarapaka and alighted at Thallagommuru, Ex-stages 8/7, handed over his ticket to the lady passenger who boarded the bust at Thallagommuru and bound for Ramachandrapuram. The Labour Court, on re-appreciation of evidence, found that during the domestic enquiry, the lady passenger stated that she was given ticket by the passenger who alighted at Thallagommuru stating that the said ticket was valid upto Ramachandrapuram and that she did not pay the fare and obtained the ticket from the conductor-workman. Believing this version of the lady passenger and considering the matter in detail, the Labour Court held that the workman was guilty of misconduct for failure to collect and issue ticket to the lady passenger, but however the allegation of re-issue of ticket by collecting the fare is not established. In these circumstances, I am of the considered opinion that when the allegation of re-issue of ticket by collecting the fare is not proved, the Labour Court ought not to have denied the continuity of service by ordering reinstatement of the workman as ‘fresh conductor’ in regular scale. Therefore, it would be just and proper to modify the impugned award by granting the relief of continuity of service, but without backwages and attendant benefits to the workman and, accordingly, the impugned award, dated 15.03.2004, passed in I.D.No.51of 2002, is modified as under: “The management is directed to reinstate the workman into service with continuity of service, but without backwages and attendant benefits.” With the above modification, the writ petition is disposed of. No order as to costs. _____________ C.V.RAMULU,J 11.06.2010 v v