THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO W.P.No.229 of 2003 ORDER: This writ petition has been preferred by the Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation (henceforth referred to as ‘the Corporation’), aggrieved by the Award passed by the Labour Court in I.D.No.86 of 2000, brought- forth by the 1st respondent, who has since died. The 1st respondent was working as a Conductor of the Corporation. While he was conducting a bus on route Vikarabad – Damastapur, on 10-07-1999, the checking officials of the Corporation have undertaken check of the bus at about 5-30 pm., when the bus was just about to reach Stage No.10 – Buchanapally. The checking officials found two lady passengers alighting the bus and they did not carry tickets with them. When the checking officials confronted them, those passengers have intimated that they have paid the Conductor the requisite fare of Rs.2-50 ps. per ticket, but the Conductor has not issued tickets to them. They have also stated that they have boarded the bus at Stage No.9. Since, the 1st respondent has not closed the statistical tray at the time of check and since two of the passengers are found alighting the bus without buying the tickets and since those two passengers have also levelled a serious allegation against the Conductor that he has collected the necessary fare, but failed to issue the tickets, the Corporation has charge-sheeted the 1st respondent- conductor on 14-07-1999. Three specific Articles of Charges have been framed and the substance of them are to the following effect: (1) failed to follow the rule “issue and start”, and thus, violated the conduct rules framed by the Corporation; (2) having collected the requisite fare from two lady passengers, failed to issue tickets; and (3) failed to close the statistical tray with regard to the number of tickets sold of the denomination of Rs.2-50 ps., and Rs.3-00. An enquiry has been ordered and during the course of enquiry, one of the two checking officials has been examined. Based upon the evidence recorded by the enquiry officer, the competent Disciplinary Authority has imposed the punishment of removal from service on the 1st respondent on 10-12-1999. In terms of the APSRTC (CCA) Regulations, the 1st respondent preferred an Appeal, which was turned down on 14-03-2000 and hence, I.D.No.86 of 2000, has been raised by him. The Labour Court has been requested by the 1st respondent to substitute a reasonable punishment to that of removal from service imposed against him, for that part of the proven misconduct, in accordance with Section 11A of the Industrial Disputes Act (for short ‘the Act’). Hence, the Labour Court had to necessarily evaluate the evidence collected by the Corporation during the course of the enquiry. It was found that the 1st respondent had made a categorical statement before the checking officials that he has not collected the fare from the two passengers at all. On the other hand, according to the 1st respondent-conductor, the two lady passengers have informed that some male passengers, who were also travelling by the same bus and accompanying them, would purchase the tickets and hence, the 1st respondent-conductor has not issued them the tickets. In support of his assertion that he has not collected the fare from the two lady passengers and that those two passengers have made a categorical statement that the male passengers accompanying them would buy their tickets, the 1st respondent-conductor had requested one of the male passengers to give a statement to the checking officials. The checking officials have been, accordingly, informed by one of the passengers that the two lady passengers have not purchased any tickets and that they did not pay for the tickets as alleged by them. Since, the 1st respondent had also examined the said passenger during the course of the enquiry, the Labour Court did not have any hesitation to come to the conclusion that the statement alleged against the 1st respondent that he had collected the fare from those two lady passengers as not liable to be believed. On the other hand, the evidence clearly discloses that those two passengers have not purchased the tickets on the pretext that their accompanying male members would buy the same. Hence, the question of those two passengers tendering the requisite fare of Rs.2-50 ps., to the 1st respondent-conductor, would not have arisen. In those circumstances, the Labour Court had no difficulty in coming to the conclusion that that part of the charge, which alleged that the 1st respondent-conductor had failed to issue tickets to the two lady passengers, after receiving requisite fare from them, as not established. But, unfortunately, the 1st respondent-conductor has carried on the journey of the bus without strictly adhering to and following the rule of the Corporation namely, “issue and start”. What this rule means and signifies is this; all the Conductors are supposed to issue tickets to all the passengers travelling in a bus duly collecting appropriate fare from them and then alone, issue necessary instructions for the driver for commencing the onward journey. Till such time the tickets are not issued to all the passengers in the bus, the journey of the bus should not be allowed to go on. This rule is directed to be followed to ensure that the Conductors will not have scope to fiddle with the revenues earned while ferrying the passengers. While it is salutary that the Conductors must follow all the instructions issued by their superiors, but at the same time, one should not lose sight of the fact that commencing the journey, while the process of issuing tickets was on, cannot amount to a gross misconduct or a hopeless violation of the conduct regulations. Obviously, the Conductors are also required to keep up the timings of the busses in such a way that the travelling time would not get prolonged by undue detention of the bus at every stage for the sake of completion of issuance of tickets. The traveling public should not be unduly subjected to inconvenience at every stage of the journey too. Hence, violation of the rule “issue and start”, is regarded, consistently, by this Court as a technical violation by the Conductors. Similarly, the failure of the 1st respondent- conductor to close the statistical tray duly entering therein the last numbers of the tickets sold for each denomination, which rule is intended to ensure that the Conductor will not seek to appropriate the fare tendered by the passengers for himself and instead he will be returning the fare collected en route to the Corporation’s kitty. It would also help preventing recycling of tickets once sold. In the instant case, the checking officials have found that the 1st respondent has not closed the statistical return with regard to the denominations of the tickets of the value of Rs.2-50 ps. and Rs.3-00 only. It is significant, therefore, to note that the statistical return with regard to the rest of the denominations / fares / ticket values, have been closed. Most unfortunately, the checking officials were negligent enough in not counting the cash available in the cash bag of the Conductor. If that was done, it would have instantaneously, been realized by the checking officials as to whether the entire amount of fare collected so far by the 1st respondent during the course of conducting the bus had been brought to the cash bag or not would have become clear and in case there was any variation, he could have been called upon to explain the discrepancies, if any. In the instant case, the cash bag of the Conductor has not been checked or verified. That would have, in fact, revealed about the correctness and veracity of the statement made by the Conductor and the passenger examined at his instance. Therefore, the blame for not properly collecting the necessary material / evidence should also lie at the door step of the Corporation. In view of the findings that Charge Nos.1 and 3 being technical violations and there being no adequate material for one to reasonably come to the conclusion that the 1st respondent-conductor was guilty of collecting the requisite fare from the two lady passengers, but failing to issue them the necessary tickets, the exercise of discretion in terms of Section 11A of the Act, is certainly warranted. The Tribunal had directed the Corporation to reinstate the 1st respondent back to service and also awarded the benefit of continuity of service together with payment of back wages at the rate of 75% for the period he was out of employment. The learned Standing Counsel, Sri K. Madhava Reddy, would strenuously submit that the discretion, which has got to be exercised by adopting sound principles, has not been properly exercised by the Labour Court and this apart, it had shown disproportionate quantum of sympathy to the cause of the 1st respondent by awarding 75% of back wages, when, in all similar circumstances, only 50% of back wages are ordered to be paid. While it is true that the Labour Court cannot exercise the power available to it under Section 11A of the Act in an arbitrary or whimsical fashion and the discretion vested in it has got to be exercised on sound lines and principles of law. There should be cogent reasons assigned for such an exercise. But, however, this is an old matter, which is pending for a number of years in this Court and unfortunately, the 1st respondent has now been reported to have died during the pendency of this writ petition as well and the matter is now being prosecuted by his legal representative. For the lack of reasons behind the exercise of discretion by the Labour Court, if the matter were to be remanded, it will cause prejudice to the surviving legal representatives, inasmuch as they will not be able to extract the necessary evidence to marshall the same before the Labour Court. I, therefore, resist the temptation of remitting the matter back for fresh consideration to the Labour Court. However, wherever the Conductors are found guilty of violating, though technically, the rule of “issue and start”, and closing the statistical tray by entering the ticket numbers therein, the Labour Court has been awarding backwages to the extent of 50%, denying the other 50% to the Conductors. It will have the salutary effect inasmuch as the denial of 50% of the back wages would certainly pinch the employee. He will feel deterred by such denial. It will also help him not to repeat such a misconduct once again when he gets reinstated. When I confronted, Sri A.K. Jayaprakash Rao, learned counsel appearing initially for the 1st respondent- conductor and now, for his legal representative, being a smart man, he frankly submitted that in normal circumstances, the practice of denial of 50% of back wages should have been followed, but however, in this case, he sought to distinguish the circumstances as to why the Labour Court was right in awarding to the 1st respondent 75% of the back wages. However much the pleadings in this regard are, I could find that adequate reasons are missing from the record of the Labour Court to justify awarding 75% of the back wages, which in itself is a departure from the normal practice of awarding 50% of back wages wherever, the employees like the 1st respondent herein, are found guilty of technical violations only. Sri A.K. Jayaprakash Rao is graceful enough in suggesting that I can as well substitute the same. Therefore, I accept his suggestion and substitute the Award with payment of 50% of the back wages. Therefore, the writ petition is partly allowed, duly substituting the payment of the quantum of back wages to the extent of 50% as against 75% ordered by the Labour Court. However, the writ petitioner-Corporation will deal with the matter of computing back wages payable to the 1st respondent-conductor and pay the same to the legal representative, namely, the wife of the deceased, who has been brought on record, within a maximum period of three months from today, at any rate before 31-12-2009. It would also do well to issue necessary instructions to the checking officials, to verify and check the ‘Bus Cash’ carried in the cash bag of the Bus. Wherever it is suspected that cash and or ticket irregularities are suspected on the part of the Conductors. No costs. -------------------------------- Nooty Ramamohana Rao, J mrk 25th September 2009.