HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT PETITION No. 281 OF 2005 27TH NOVEMBER, 2009. BETWEEN G.J. Abraham …Petitioner And The Depot Manager,APSRTC, Nagarkurnool Depot, Mahaboobnagar Dist, and, anr. ….Respondents. HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT PETITION No. 281 OF 2005 ORDER: The partly successful petitioner, whose dispute was referred under Section 10(1)(C) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for brevity ’the Act of 1947’) for adjudication by the Industrial Tribunal-II, Hyderabad, in I.D.No.60 of 1998, is before this Court aggrieved by the modification of the punishment imposed upon him only to a limited extent. The Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation (APSRTC), the employer, imposed upon the petitioner the punishment of stoppage of two increments with cumulative effect and by the Award dated 14.12.1998, the Industrial Tribunal-II, Hyderabad reduced the same to stoppage of one increment with cumulative effect. The petitioner was appointed as a conductor in the service of the APSRTC in the year 1979. While he was conducting a bus service en route Marikal on 25/26.09.1984, a surprise check was made and certain irregularities were alleged against him. Being dissatisfied with his explanation, the APSRTC instituted a regular enquiry into the matter. Thereupon, the punishment of stoppage of two increments with cumulative effect was imposed upon him. His appeal against the said order was rejected and during the pendency of his review application, the subject reference came to be made by the State Government in exercise of powers under Section 10 of the Act of 1947. The Industrial Tribunal having considered the matter on merits in detail came to the conclusion that the petitioner/conductor was negligent in his primary duty. It observed that it was the conductor who is responsible for non- collection of fares and that non-collection of fares even to the tune of a small amount would affect the existence of the APSRTC as well as the welfare of the workers of the APSRTC. Having stated so, the Industrial Tribunal was of the opinion that the punishment of stoppage of two annual increments with cumulative effect was a little harsh and accordingly reduced it to stoppage of one increment with cumulative effect. It is relevant to note that the APSRTC did not choose to challenge the Award of the Industrial Tribunal as regards the relief granted to the petitioner. In the light of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, I do not see any reason to interfere with the discretion exercised by the Industrial Tribunal in modifying the punishment. Once the Industrial Tribunal found that the charges levelled against the petitioner were established, the scope for interference in the matter was very limited. In such circumstances, the Industrial Tribunal thought it fit to reduce the punishment on the grounds of proportionality of the punishment. The Award of the Industrial Tribunal therefore does not warrant interference by this Court in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. The Writ Petition is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. --------------------------- JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DATED 27TH NOVEMBER, 2009. Msnr. HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR ORDER WRIT PETITION No. 281 OF 2005 27.11.2009 MSNR.