IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 7611 of 2000 Between: The Depot Manager, A.P.S.R.T.C. Bus Depot, Hanamkonda. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 Ch. Somaiah S/o.Sailu R/o.Wardhannapet Village & Mandal, Warangal District. 2 The Indl. Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, at Warangal. .....RESPONDENTS 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 to issue any appropriate writ, direction or order particularly a writ in the nature of a writ of certiorari calling for the records pertaining to the award in I.D.No.227/95 of the Indl.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Warangal dated:15.12.1999 and published on 19.2.2000 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 No.: MR.R.K.CHITTA The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY Writ Petition No. 7611 of 2000 Order: Challenging the award dated 15.12.1999, passed in I.D. No. 227 of 1995 by the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Warangal, setting aside the removal order passed against the first respondent herein and directing the petitioner-Corporation to reinstate him into service with full backwages, continuity of service and all attendant benefits, the petitioner-Corporation filed the present writ petition. The first respondent was appointed as a Conductor in the petitioner-Corporation in the year 1985. On 28.11.1993, while he was conducting the bus bearing No. 1977, a check was exercised by the checking officials at stage No.5, Thimmapur, and found certain cash and ticket irregularities. With reference to the said irregularities, disciplinary proceedings were initiated against him and he was issued with a charge sheet dated 26.11.1993 by framing three charges. The charges framed against the first respondent read as under. “1. For having failed to observe the rule ‘complete the ticket issues and close the SR before arrival of the next stage, which constitute misconduct in terms of Reg.28(xxxii) of APSRTC Employees (Conduct) Regulation 1963. 2. For having failed to issue ticket to a passenger, despite collecting the requisite fare of Rs.1/- (one rupee) from him who found alighting without ticket at Timmapur X Roads, stage No.5, having boarded the bus at Timmapur stage No.7 which constitute misconduct in terms of Reg.28(vi)(a) of APSRTC Employees (Conduct) Regulation 1963. 3. For having failed to close the tray numbers of all denominations against stage No.5 which constitutes misconduct in terms of Reg.No.28(xxxii) of APSRTC Employees (Conduct) Reg. 1963.” The first respondent-workman submitted his explanation denying the said charges. Having not satisfied with the same, an Enquiry Officer was appointed to conduct a domestic enquiry into the matter. The Enquiry Officer, who conducted the enquiry, submitted his report by recording a finding that all the charges leveled against the first respondent were proved. Based on the report of the Enquiry Officer, the disciplinary authority, by his order dated 22.04.1994, removed the first respondent from service. Though the first respondent carried the matter before the departmental appellate authority, the same was rejected. Thereafter, he raised an industrial dispute, questioning the order of removal as confirmed by the appellate authority, by filing an application under Section 2-A(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, which was numbered as I.D. No. 227 of 1995. The Labour Court, Warangal, by recording a finding that the first respondent could not have issued ticket to one passenger for the reasons beyond his control, has set aside the order of removal and ordered to reinstate the first respondent into service with full backwages and continuity of service by substituting the punishment to that of stoppage of one increment without cumulative effect. Heard the learned Standing Counsel for the petitioner-Corporation. There is no representation on behalf of the first respondent-workman. In this writ petition, it is contended by the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the petitioner-Corporation that though in the domestic enquiry all the charges framed against the first respondent were proved, the Labour Court, by merely recording a finding that non- issuance of ticket is only an irregularity and no mala fides can be attributed to the first respondent, ordered for reinstatement of the first respondent into service with continuity of service and backwages, which is illegal and arbitrary. He further submitted that no valid reasons were recorded by the Tribunal either for setting aside the order of removal or for ordering reinstatement of the first respondent into service with continuity of service and backwages. A perusal of the record would show that charge No.2 was framed against the first respondent alleging that he having collected fare from a passenger failed to issue ticket. Even though the spot statement of the said passenger was recorded to that effect, the only plea of the first respondent-workman in the enquiry proceedings was that the said passenger gave a false statement. However, the Enquiry officer, having considered the other oral and documentary evidence on record, recorded a finding that the charges leveled against the first respondent were proved. But, the Tribunal, without any basis, by merely recording a finding that non-issuance of ticket is only an irregularity and no mala fides can be attributed to the first respondent, ordered for reinstatement of the first respondent into service with continuity of service and backwages. The very fact that the first respondent, having collected fare from a passenger, failed to issue ticket clearly shows his mala fide intention to defraud the revenue of the Corporation, which constitutes misconduct as per the Conduct Regulations. The Tribunal, on mere assumptions, recorded a finding that the first respondent could not have issued ticket to one passenger for the reasons beyond his control, which is contrary to the evidence on record. Further, the Tribunal, while awarding lesser punishment, ordered for payment of backwages, without giving any valid reasons. Award of backwages, in such a situation, is elaborately dealt with by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in J.K. Synthetics Ltd., v. K.P. Agrawal[1]. In the afore said judgment, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that where reinstatement is a consequence of imposition of a lesser punishment, neither back wages nor continuity of service nor consequential benefits, follow as a natural or necessary consequence of such reinstatement. It is also held that in cases where the misconduct is held to be proved, and reinstatement is itself a consequential benefit arising from imposition of a lesser punishment, award of back wages for the period when the employee has not worked, may amount to rewarding the delinquent employee and punishing the employer for taking action for the misconduct committed by the employee. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, and in the light of the above said judgment, this Court is of the view that this is not a case at all for awarding backwages and the Tribunal, without recording any valid reasons, in a routine and casual manner ordered for payment of backwages. As much as it is stated by the learned Standing Counsel for the petitioner-Corporation that the first respondent-workman was already reinstated into service pursuant to the award of the Labour Court, and taking into account the pendency of the matter for several years, this Court is of the view that interest of justice would be met if the award of the Labour Court to the extent of granting backwages is set aside, while confirming it’s award in all other aspects. For the aforesaid reasons, the impugned award of the Labour Court to the extent of awarding backwages is set aside, but the award of the Labour Court in all other aspects stands confirmed. The writ petition is partly allowed to the extent as indicated above. There shall be no order as to costs. _____________________ R. SUBHASH REDDY, J. Date: 17.02.2009 Nsr [1] (2007) 2 SCC 433