WP/4802/2000 of J.Nallaiah, Vs Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, on 26 December 2007

ORAL ORDER:

This writ petition is filed challenging the award made in I.D.No.54 of1987 dated 10.9.1997 on the file of the first respondent-Labour Courtinsofar as denying continuity of service, backwages and other attendantbenefits while ordering fresh appointment of the petitioner.

It appears, petitioner was appointed as Conductor in the secondrespondent-Corporation in the year 1979 and attached to KothagudemDepot. While that being so, on 29.4.1984 when he was conducting theBus on the route Ramavaram to CRP camp, a check was exercised bythe checking officials between stage Nos.4 and 5 and found certain cashand ticket irregularities. A charge sheet was issued to the petitioner andafter conducting a detailed enquiry into the matter, he was removed fromservice vide proceedings dated 15.10.1984. The appeal filed against thesaid order was rejected on 12.4.1985. Ultimately, petitioner raised adispute before the first respondent-Labour Court. Before the LabourCourt, it was the case of the petitioner that the enquiry was not properlyconducted and absolutely there was no evidence to prove the chargesframed against him and even assuming that the charges are proved,punishment of removal from service is disproportionate to that of themisconduct alleged. The respondent-management filed a detailedcounter denying the allegations made by the petitioner and asserted thatthe charges leveled against the petitioner are grave in nature and theenquiry was conducted after giving a fair and proper opportunity to thepetitioner. Before the Labour Court, petitioner examined himself asW.W.1, however, no documents were marked. On behalf of respondent-management, though none were examined, documents Exs.M1 to M16were marked. After detailed examination of the evidence and material on record, the Labour Court came to the conclusion that the enquiryconducted by the management was proper and valid and the chargesframed against the petitioner were proved. However, in the facts andcircumstances of the case, found that the removal from service wasdisproportionate to that of the misconduct alleged, therefore directed therespondent-management to reinstate the petitioner as Conductor afresh.Aggrieved by the same, the present writ petition is filed.

Heard both sides.

The charges leveled against the petitioner are that he failed tocollect fare and issue tickets to (16) passengers under three charges. The explanation offered by the petitioner was that at the time of check,there were about (70) passengers in the Bus and he was in the middle ofthe Bus and was in the act of issuing tickets. In the meanwhile check hadtaken place, therefore, he cannot be blamed for such trivial misconduct.Further, the passengers boarded the Bus at stage ex-stage No.4 and thecheck had taken place between ex-stages 4 and 5 and the Bus did noteven travel beyond one fare stage. Therefore, absolutely there was nochance for him to issue tickets particularly when there were (70)passengers in the Bus. This fact has been elicited in the cross-examination of TTI who was examined in the domestic enquiry. Whenthe TTI was asked, he replied that ‘yes’ the Conductor was in the middleof the Bus and he was in the act of issuing tickets.

In view of this submission, there is no necessity of going into otherdetails. This itself would show that the Conductor was in the act ofissuing tickets and the Bus has not even traveled beyond one fare stage. Therefore, assuming that the charge is proved, the punishment ofremoval from service is disproportionate to that of the misconduct allegedagainst the petitioner. The Labour Court ought not to have denied entireservice of the petitioner.

Under those circumstances, to meet the ends of justice, the award

Conclusion

passed by the Labour Court is modified to the following effect:“In the result, the respondent-management is directed toreinstate the petitioner into service with continuity ofservice, such as, seniority, promotion, but without anybackwages and other attendant benefits.

The writ petition is accordingly disposed of. No order as to costs.

______________

Date: 26.12.2007DA

C.V.RAMULU, J

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU

26.12.2007

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESHAT HYDERABAD

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. RAMULU

W.P.No.4802 of 2000

Date: 26[th] December, 2007

Between:J.Nallaiah

.. Petitioner

And

Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour court,Warangal, rep. by its Presiding Officer & another.

.. Respondents