HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N. RAVI SHANKAR WRIT PETITION NO.1381 of 2002 ORDER:- The four petitioners herein are the Andhra Pradesh Road Transport Corporation (for short APSRTC), rep. by its Managing Director, the Depot Manager of Achampet depot of APSRTC and the concerned other authorities. They filed this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution for a writ of Certiorari or any other appropriate writ for quashing the award dated 22-2-2001 passed in I.D.No.186 of 1998 by the Labour Court-III, Hyderabad and for restoring the penalty of removal from service awarded to the first respondent herein by the disciplinary authorities of APSRTC. 2. At the relevant time the first respondent was working as bus conductor in Achampet depot of APSRTC. A disciplinary enquiry was commenced against him for certain ticket irregularities on the following four charges. (repeated verbatim) 1. For having failed to issue tickets to four (4) passengers who boarded the bus at Kodthal stage No.20 and alighting without tickets at Maisigandi stage No.19, inspite of collected their requisite fare of Rs.2/- each which constitutes misconduct under Reg.28(vi)(a) of APSRTC Employees (Conduct) Reg. 1963. 2. For having failed to collect the requisite fare of Rs.3-50 each and issue tickets to four(4) passengers found travelling without tickets, who boarded the bus at Kadthal and bound for Amangal ex-stages Nos.20 to 17, which constitutes misconduct under Reg.28(vi)(a) of APSRTC Employees (Conduct) Reg. 1963. 3. For having failed to collect the requisite fare of Rs.9/- each and issue tickets to two(2) passengers found travelling without tickets, who boarded the bus at Kadthal and bound for Kalwakurthy ex-stages Nos.20 to 12, which constitutes misconduct under Reg.28(vi)(a) of APSRTC Employees (Conduct) Reg. 1963. 4. For having violated the rule ‘Issue and Start’ which constitutes misconduct under Reg.28(xxxii) of APSRTC Employees (Conduct) Reg. 1963. 3. All the facts and circumstances which gave rise to the above four charges against the first respondent are set out in detail in the award of the labour Court. After considering the explanation of the first respondent and the evidence recorded in the domestic enquiry, the disciplinary authority by its order dated 5-11-1997 held that all the four charges were proved and after hearing the first respondent (Conductor) on the question of punishment, removed him from service. The appeal and revision preferred by the Conductor before the concerned authorities against his removal from service were also rejected. Thereafter the Conductor moved the present I.D.No.186 of 1998 before the labour Court. The labour Court after considering the matter by its award dated 22-2-2001 held that the penalty of removal from service was highly disproportionate and therefore it directed reinstatement of the Conductor into service with 50% of back wages and continuity of service with all attendant benefits. It is challenging that award, the present writ petition is filed by the APSRTC authorities. 4. The contention of Sri C.Sunil Kumar Reddy, the learned Standing Counsel for petitioners, is that all the four charges framed against the Conductor are serious in nature and that the labour Court having found that the charges 1 to 3 were not proved proceeded to hold that charge No.4 which relates to violation of the rule of “issue and start” has been violated in the circumstances on humanitarian grounds by him and then proceeded to impose the lesser penalty which it imposed. He pointed out that the labour court went wrong in appreciating the evidence on charges and it should have upheld charges 1 to 3 also and also confirmed the punishment of removal. He also argued that the tenor of the labour court award would show that it recorded inconsistent findings which are not tenable. 5. There was no representation for the Conductor despite sufficient opportunity. It should also be mentioned here that though this matter was reserved for orders on 03.08.2011 no steps have been taken by the Conductor to present his case till today i.e. when this judgment is being pronounced. 6. In order to examine the above contentions of Sri Sunil Kumar and decide about the validity of the award, the charges and the findings recorded by the labour court require to be examined. The charges have already been set out supra. 7. Charge No.1 relates to four passengers, charge No.2 again relate to four passengers and charge No.3 relates to two passengers. In all charges 1 to 3 relate to ten passengers. All the ten passengers are said to have boarded the bus at Kadthal i.e. stage No.20. The check took place at Mysigandi i.e. stage No.19 which is said to be around 7 to 10 KM away from Kadthal. Charges 2 and 3 relate to starting the bus at Kadthal without collecting fare and issuing tickets to the passengers covered by the said charges. The passengers covered by charge No.2 were bound for Amangal and the two passengers covered by charge No.3 were found for Kalwakurthy which were beyond Mysigandi. However charge No.1 relates to four passengers who were bound for Mysigandi and that charge is that the Conductor collected fare of Rs.2/- each from all the four but failed to issue tickets and they are stated to have alighted Mysigandi where the check took place without tickets. It may then be noted that charge No.4 relates to violation of the rule of “issuing tickets and starting the bus” at Kadthal where all the ten passengers boarded the bus. 8. The labour court went by the explanation of the Conductor that one lady passenger was pregnant and was undergoing labour pains and therefore her husband and some other passengers forced him to move the bus and therefore he moved the bus. The labour court observed this moving the bus on the part of the Conductor without issuing the tickets was a humanitarian gesture. In that view of the matter it held that charges 1 to 3 were not proved. However at the same time under charge No.4 though it did not give a specific finding the substance of the observations made by the labour court show that though the Conductor violated the said rule he must be held to have violated it on humanitarian grounds. Having observed thus it did not give a clean exoneration to the Conductor, but it reduced the penalty by ordering reinstatement with continuity of service but only with 50% of back wages and attendant benefits relating to past service. Sri Sunil Kumar is attacking these findings as inconsistent on the ground that the labour court in substance as held the charges as proved but the labour court went wrong in not confirming the punishment of removal. 9. The Conductor’s statistical return is marked as Ex.M1 and the statements of the passengers are together marked as Ex.M2. In the Conductor’s statistical return it will be found that one D.Bharath Kumar (name written in Telugu) made a statement showing that it was addressed to the depot manager concerned. In that statement he stated that himself and his pregnant wife boarded the bus at Kadthal and as his wife was undergoing labour pains he forced the Conductor to start the bus as himself and his wife were in a hurry to go to Amangal where there is a hospital so that his wife can be taken there as quickly as possible for medical care. It therefore follows that this D.Bharath Kumar and his wife can be said to be among the four passengers covered by charge No.2 which relates only to not collecting fare and not issuing tickets to the said passengers. It cannot therefore be said that they were among the four passengers from whom he is said to have collected fare but did not issue tickets to them who are covered by charge No.1. 10. The labour court relying upon what it calls humanitarian grounds even held charge No.1 as not proved and this can be said to be against evidence. It may be noted that Ex.M2 contains the statement of four passengers who were alighting at Mysigandi stage without tickets and they stated that the Conductor collected fare from them but did not issue tickets and in the meanwhile their stage came and therefore they got down. The Conductor’s explanation is that of the above four only one passenger gave a torn ten rupee note and it is not the Conductor’s case that the said one passenger gave the ten rupee note to cover the fare of all the four and he was arguing with him regarding the validity of that ten rupee note and in the meanwhile the check took place. Even assuming for a moment that the “torn ten rupee explanation” of the Conductor can be accepted it applies only to one passenger and not the other three. 11. The disciplinary authority considered this aspect and held that the charge No.1 was proved and from the evidence it can be said that it stands proved at least in respect of the three passengers. The labour court did not consider the above circumstance and simply went by the humanitarian grounds approach which it mentioned. If the Conductor had not collected the fare from the three passengers it would have been a case of merely not collecting the fare and not issuing tickets like the allegation in charges 2 and 3, but in the above circumstances the conclusion of the disciplinary authority that it was a case of collection of fare and not issuing tickets ought to have been accepted by the labour court. The labour court’s view that the Conductor started the bus on humanitarian grounds without issuing tickets would have become acceptable only in case fare was not collected insofar as the said passengers are concerned. Thus the labour court’s finding that the said charge is not proved cannot be sustained on evidence. It may be noted that this court under Article 226 of the Constitution can interfere with a finding of fact of the labour court if it is against evidence. Here the finding of the labour court can be said to be, to repeat, definitely against evidence insofar as the three passengers out of four covered by the first charge and therefore it is set aside to the extent of three passengers covered by it, it is held proved. 12. Then coming to charges 2 and 3 both of them relate to not collecting fare and not issuing tickets. It may be noted here that the Conductor was duty bound to inform the passengers that he cannot violate the rule of ‘issue and start’ notwithstanding the presence of a pregnant lady undergoing labour pains as a passenger in the bus. Even assuming that he moved the bus in violation of the above rule on demand of the passengers and having regard to the urgency of the pregnant lady to reach her destination, Mysigandi stage where the check took place was 7 to 10 KM away from Kadthal. He could have started issuing the tickets and completed them after moving the bus before it reached Mysigandi as there were only 35 passengers in the bus as held by the disciplinary authority which is not in dispute. The disciplinary authority rightly found that the Conductor could have issued the tickets as the journey time was 15 to 20 minutes to Mysigandi from Kadthal. The labour court lost sight of this aspect also. Instead the labour court discussed about the duties of the Conductor and described him as first level public relations officer and his difficulties. It then proceeded to acquit him of the charges 2 and 3 and it was not right in doing so. Of-course the circumstances mentioned by the labour court and the presence of the pregnant lady in the bus may have a bearing on the penalty to be imposed and I shall deal with that aspect a little later. 13. Then coming to charge No.4, it may be noted that it relates to violation of the rule of “issue and start”. This is connected to charges 1 to 3 and once they are held to be proved it follows that this charge has also to be held proved. In fact the labour court going by the language in the award upheld this charge but reduced the penalty which is already stated supra. Thus it is held that charge No.1 to the extent of three passengers therein and charges 2 to 4 are held proved accepting the contentions of Sri Sunil Kumar. 14. Now coming to the penalty, it may be noted that when this writ petition was admitted the following interim order was passed on the stay petition. “It is stated by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the 1st respondent-workman has already been reinstated into service. There shall be an interim stay of execution of the impugned award, provided the petitioners deposits the entire amount of back wages awarded by the labour court, within eight weeks from today. On such deposit being made, the 1st respondent-workman can withdraw half of the deposited amount without furnishing any security. If the petitioners fail to deposit the amount within the time as aforesaid, the interim order shall stand vacated.” 15. It is not the case of the petitioners that the Conductor is not in service now and they themselves reinstated him and it is stated that they complied with the order regarding deposit of wages as ordered in the stay petition. This writ petition is of 2002 and we are now in August 2011 and more than nine years have elapsed. It may be noted that though collection of fare from three passengers and not issuing tickets to them as held now under charge No.1 is a serious one, more than nine years have elapsed since the Conductor has been reinstated. The other three charges do not involve any corruption. Having regard to the long time gap from 2002 to till today and also having regard to the “presence of pregnant lady factor” in the bus which is already mentioned supra, I am of the opinion that ends of justice would be met if full back wages are denied to the Conductor for the relevant period while maintaining the reinstatement order with other attendant benefits. The penalty portion of the labour court award is accordingly modified and for the aforesaid reasons this writ petition is partly allowed as indicated above. No costs. ______________________ N. RAVI SHANKAR, J 18th August 2011 CVRK