THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. RAMULU WRIT PETITION No. 3462 of 2005 O R D E R: This Writ Petition is directed against the Award dated 24.03.2003 made in I.D.No. 50 of 2001 on the file of the Labour Court-III, Hyderabad. The petitioner is the workman and Respondent No.2 is the Management. It appears, the petitioner was appointed as a Conductor in the Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation, with effect from 29.09.1990 and was attached to Respondent No.2 Depot. While he was conducting the bus, on 06.05.2000, a check was exercised at Stage No. 4 and it was found that the petitioner having collected the requisite fare of Rs.7.50 ps. from a batch of three passengers, totalling to Rs.22.50 ps. at the boarding point itself, failed to issue tickets to them and he had closed the tray numbers of all denominations in SR up to Stage No.4. Therefore, the petitioner was charge sheeted on 12.05.2000 enumerating the following charges: 1) For having violated Rule “Issue an start” which constitutes misconduct under Reg.28(xxxii) of APSRTC Employees’ (Conduct) Reg. 1963. 2) For having collected requisite fare @ Rs.7.50 ps. each total Rs.22.50 ps. from a batch of three passengers at boarding point itself and failed to issue tickets to them, bound traveling with tickets, who boarded the bus at Mahabubnagar an bound for Devarkadra ex-stages 1 to 6, which constitutes misconduct Reg. 28(vi)(a) & (xxxi) and (xxxii) of APSRTC Employees’ (Conduct) Reg. 1963. 3) For having closed tray numbers of all denominations in the S.R. up to stage No.4 Oglaipally without completing the above ticket issues, which constitutes misconduct under Reg.28(xxxi) (xxxii) of APSRTC Employees’ Conduct Reg. 1963. After completing all the formalities, the petitioner was removed from service. Aggrieved thereby, he raised a dispute under Section 2- A(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 before the Labour Court - III, Hyderabad. According to the petitioner, the charges are as vague as they could be apart from being trivial and assuming that the charges are proved, the punishment of removal from service is disproportionate. A detailed counter-affidavit was filed by the respondent management. No oral evidence was let in on either side. However, on behalf of the Management, documents Exs.M1 to 19 were marked. After going through the material placed before it, the Labour Court came to the conclusion that the enquiry conducted by the management is just and valid and further held that the charges are proved. However, the Labour Court went into the aspect of proportionality of the punishment and felt that removal from service is shockingly disproportionate to the proven misconduct alleged against him and therefore, while setting aide the removal order, passed by the respondent on 01.03.2009, directed the Management to reinstate the workman into service with continuity of service, but without back wages and attendant benefits and further imposing the punishment of deferment of two annual grade increments with cumulative effect. Aggrieved thereby, the present Writ Petition is filed by the workman on the ground that imposition of the punishment of stoppage of annual grade increments with cumulative effect while directing the re-instatement with continuity of service but without back wages and attendant benefits is arbitrary and illegal. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. Learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents supported the Award made by the Labour Court and submitted that the Labour Court itself has taken a lenient view in the matter and directed re-instatement with continuity of service, but without back wages and further directed to impose a punishment of stoppage of two annual grade increments with cumulative effect, while exercising its powers under Section 11 of the 1947 Act. Therefore, no case is made out, calling for the interference of this Court in the Award made by the Labour Court. I have given my earnest consideration to the respective contentions put forward by the learned counsel on either side and perused the impugned order and the other material made available on record. This is a case where the petitioner, while conducting the bus did not issue tickets to three passengers, having collected the requisite fare of Rs.7.50 ps. from each one of them, though the bus passed four stages. When a check was exercised, the passengers have categorically stated that they paid the money at the boarding point itself, but the petitioner had not issued tickets. Apart from this, there were only nine passengers in the bus including these ticket-less passengers. Thus, the Labour Court has rightly come to the conclusion that the charges are proved in full and the enquiry was properly conducted. However, the Labour Court in its wisdom, while exercising the powers under Section 11-B of the 1947 Act, set aside the removal order and directed reinstatement of the petitioner with continuity of service but without back wages and attendant benefits and further directed the respondents to impose a punishment of stoppage of two annual grade increments with cumulative effect. The order passed by the Labour Court, imposing the punishment of stoppage of two increments with cumulative effect, in the facts and circumstances, cannot be said to be arbitrary or illegal. The Writ Petition is devoid of merit and is liable to be dismissed. The Writ Petition is accordingly dismissed. No costs. -------------------- (C. V. RAMULU, J) 10th June 2010 ksld