The Hon’ble Sri Justice N. Ravi Shankar W.P.No. 19463 of 2002 O r d e r: Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing counsel appearing for the second respondent-APSRTC. 2. This writ petition is filed seeking a Writ of Certiorari or any other appropriate writ or order quashing the Award dated:24.1.2002 passed by the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court (Labour Court) in I.D.No. 43 of 2001 on its file. 2. The petitioner herein at the relevant time was working as a conductor in the second respondent-depot of Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation (APSRTC). A disciplinary enquiry was commenced against the petitioner by the second respondent on the following three charges. 1. For having failed to observe the rule of “issue and start” which constitutes misconduct in terms of Reg.28(xxxi) of APSRTC Employees (conduct) Regulations, 1963. 2. For having failed to issue tickets to the “TEN” individual passengers from whom you have already collected requisite fare of Rs.3-00 (Rs. Three) each i.e., total amounting of Rs.30-00 (Rs. Thirty), who boarded your bus at Kalavasree Rampur and were found alighting without tickets at Tarupalli ex-stages 12to 13, which constituted misconduct in terms of Regulation (vi)(x)(a) of APSRTC Employees’ (Conduct) Regulations, 1963. 3. For having failed to close the SR, against by stage No. 13 and hence marked XXX in the SR, TTIs which constitutes misconduct in terms of Regulation 28 (xxxii) of APSRTC Employees’ (Conduct) Regulations, 1963.” 3. The petitioner submitted his explanation for the above charges and after holding an enquiry, the disciplinary authority by order dated: 30-10-2000 removed the petitioner from service. The said order was confirmed by the appellate authority and also the revisional authority. Thereafter the petitioner raised the present industrial dispute – I.D.No. 43 of 2001 before the first respondent. The first respondent by the impugned Award confirmed the order of removal of the petitioner from service. It is challenging the said Award the present writ petition is filed. 4. Sri G. Ravi Mohan, learned counsel for the petitioner invited my attention to the Award in question and argued that the first respondent has failed to consider the matter and record a finding regarding the contentions of the petitioner on the charges framed and it also failed to examine the issues raised by the other side – APSRTC and in that view of the matter he argued that the Award should be set aside. On the other hand Ms. Vijaya, learned counsel appearing for APSRTC supported the Award. 5. The three charges framed against the petitioner have already been extracted supra. It may be noted that a perusal of the Award would disclose that it mentioned about charge Nos. 1 and 3; then mentioned about the version of the TTI; it also noted about the distance between the stages in question and straight away concluded that the Corporation’s stand was correct. The Labour Court merely set out the evidence let in by the management of APSRTC with regard to all the charges and then concluded that had the check not taken place at the stage where it took place, the petitioner could have deceived the APSRTC. It may be noted that charge No.2 relates to collection of fare from ten passengers and not issuing tickets to them. The petitioner has come up with his explanation before the disciplinary authority and it is true that he took different stands with regard to his plea to show that he did not indulge in any corruption. The Labour Court has not considered the explanation of the Conductor/petitioner and did not express any opinion on the acceptability or otherwise of the evidence of APSRTC by giving a definite reason as to why it is accepting the same and as to why it has rejected defense of the petitioner. This is the position even with regard to charge Nos. 1 and 3. It then straight away concluded that the charges are proved and the order of the disciplinary authority removing the petitioner from service has been confirmed. I am of the opinion that this approach of the Labour Court cannot be accepted to be correct, inasmuch as it did not discuss the rival contentions of the parties regarding the important issue of corruption covered by charge No.2 and also the other two charges. 5. It may then be noted that this court sitting under Article 226 of the Constitution of India cannot now appreciate the evidence and come to one conclusion or the other on merits. In these circumstances, it follows that the matter has to be remitted back to the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Godavarikhani (Labour Court) for fresh disposal. It may be noted that the impugned Award is of the year 2002 and the writ petition is also of the year 2002. Despite this time gap, for the aforesaid reasons, the matter has to be remitted back. 6. Accordingly the writ petition is allowed. The award passed by the first respondent in I.D.No.43 of 2001 on 24.1.2002 is set aside and the matter is remitted to the first respondent for fresh disposal, according to Law. No costs. 7. It is represented that the petitioner is now aged 52 years. Hence the first respondent shall take up the matter on priority basis and dispose of the same as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. ______________________ N. RAVI SHANKAR, J. August 4, 2011. *BVS IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD Thursday, August 04, 2011. Present: The Hon’ble Sri Justice N. Ravi Shankar W.P.No. 19463 of 2002 Between: G.T. Reddy ..Petitioner and The Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Godavarikhani and another …Respondents