IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE THIRTEENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 5693 of 2000 Between: The Depot Manager, A.P.S.R.T.C. Bus Depot, Jangaon, Warangal District. ..... PETITIONER AND K.Babu, H.No.2-4-67, Gokalnagar, Hanamkonda, Warangal. .....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 issue any appropriate Writ, direction or order particularly a Writ of Certiorari calling for the records pertaining to the Award in I.D.No.141/95 dt.10.11.99 and published on 12.1.2000 of the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Warangal and quash the same as being illegal, arbitrary and unjust and pass all such other orders as may be deemed just and necessary in the circumstances of the case. Counsel for the Petitioner :SMT.P.RAJANI REDDY (SC FOR APSRTC) Counsel for the Respondent: MR.G.VIDYASAGAR The Court made the following : ORDER : This writ petition is filed by the Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation, through its Depot Manager, Jangaon Depot in Warangal District, challenging the award of the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, dated 10th November 1999, passed in I.D.No.141 of 1995. 2. The respondent herein is working as a Conductor in the Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation, and is attached to Jangaon Depot. On 16th December 1989, while he was conducting the bus bearing No.2489 on the route from Hanamkonda to Jangaon, in the transit, a check was exercised by the checking officials at Stage No.11/10 and they have noticed certain cash and ticket irregularities. Therefore, disciplinary proceedings were initiated against the respondent, and he was charge- sheeted vide charge sheet dated 22nd December 1989, with the following three charges : “1. For having violated the rule Issue and Start while conducting the Bus No.2489 on route Hanamkonda – Jangaon on 16.12.1989 at stage No.13, Hanamkonda. 2. For having reissued 15 tickets of Rs.3.25 ps denomination bearing Nos.196/193349 to 193365 which were already issued and sold by you at stage No.7, Ghanpur, in Up Journey from Jangaon to Hanamkonda, ex.stages 1 to 13, as per Punch Marks observed on these tickets to the 15 passengers who boarded the bus at Hanamkonda and were bound for Ghanpur, ex.stages 13 to 7, duly collecting the requisite fare at their boarding place of Hanamkonda. 3. For having failed to mention the number of tickets issued in the column provided for Rs.3.25 ps denomination in the SR bearing No.07098.” 3. When the respondent/workman has denied the above said charges, a regular inquiry was conducted by appointing an inquiry officer. The inquiry officer, who conducted the inquiry, has filed the inquiry report by recording a finding to the effect that the charges framed against the respondent were proved. Based on the said findings recorded by the inquiry officer, the respondent was removed from service by an order dated 12th July 1990. Against the said order of removal, the petitioner has filed an appeal before the Divisional Manager, APSRTC, Hanamkonda, which was dismissed by an order, dated 30th September 1991. Further, the review filed by the respondent was also dismissed by an order, dated 22.10.1994, by the Regional Manager. Thereafter, the respondent has filed an Industrial Dispute in I.D.No.141 of 1995 before the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Warangal, by filing an application under Section 2-A(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The Industrial Tribunal, while re-appreciating the material on record, by the impugned award dated 10th November 1999, has recorded a finding that the charges framed against the respondent will not amount to misconduct, and therefore, it has ordered for reinstatement into service with backwages and continuity of service, but however, imposed the punishment of stoppage of one annual increment without cumulative effect. 4. In this writ petition, it is argued by Smt.P.Rajani Reddy, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the petitioner/Corporation that having regard to the charges framed against the respondent, particularly under charge No.2, it cannot be considered as a mere irregularity, but a clear misconduct, as the respondent has issued the already used tickets in upward journey from Jangaon to Hanamkonda, in the return journey from Hanamkonda to Jangaon. It is submitted that when the inquiry officer has recorded a finding that the charges levelled against the respondent are proved, the Labour Court, without recording valid reasons, has ordered for reinstatement with backwages. On the other hand, it is submitted by Sri G.Vidya Sagar, leaned counsel appearing for the respondent that though the inquiry officer has found that the charges are proved, it is always open for the Tribunal to reappreciate the material on record to come to a different conclusion. 4. During the pendency of this writ petition, it is submitted that pursuant to the award of the Tribunal, the respondent was reinstated in the year 2000 and as per the orders of this Court, dated 02.04.2002, 50% of backwages were already deposited and withdrawn by the respondent without furnishing any security. 5. In this case, it is to be noted that with reference to Charge No.1, it was not in dispute that there were about 135 passengers in the bus when it was checked. Though the capacity of the bus was only 50, the number of passengers were more than double of its capacity. Asmuch as charge No.1 is concerned, assuming that it was not possible to follow the Rule of issue and start having regard to the number of passengers boarded in the bus, but with regard to charge No.2, the Tribunal has wholly misunderstood the said charge. There was no charge of incorrect punching, as recorded by the Tribunal and under Charge No.2, a specific charge is framed to the effect that the respondent has re-used 15 tickets, which were already used in the upward journey from Jangaon to Hanamkonda. In that view of the matter, it cannot be said that it is only an irregularity. When such charge is proved, it is a clear case where misconduct is proved against the respondent. The Tribunal below, by misreading the charge, has erred in recording a finding that charge No.2 will not amount to misconduct. But, at the same time, it is to be noticed that the respondent/workman was reinstated pursuant to the award of the Tribunal and he was already paid 50% of backwages awarded by the Tribunal, and after his reinstatement, he has completed 9 years of service. Though in normal course, the matter is to be remitted back for re-consideration by the Tribunal, as much as the order of removal was passed in 1990, and the dispute is pending for the last about 19 years, to put a quietus to the litigation, this Court is of the view to modify the award of the Tribunal, by limiting the backwages only to 50%. 6. Accordingly, the writ petition is partly allowed. The award of the Tribunal to the extent of reinstatement, continuity of service and stoppage of one increment, is confirmed, but however, the respondent/workman is entitled to only 50% of backwages. 7. The writ petition is allowed in part, to the extent indicated above. No order as to costs. ______________________ R. SUBHASH REDDY, J 13th February 2009. ajr