WP/1164/1997 of M/S.HOTEL PRIYA REP.PARTNER Vs AP STATE FINANCIAL CORPN.REP.B.M.HYD. on 25 November 1997

ORAL ORDER:

This Writ Petition is filed by the workman being aggrieved by the Award dated 25-9-1996 passed in I.D.No.724 of 1993 on the file of Labour Court-III, Hyderabad.

It is the case of the petitioner that he was appointed as a Conductor in the year 1987and put in fairly good track of service record. While so, when he was conducting thebus on 29-5-1991, a check was exercised and certain cash and ticket irregularitieswere found. On the basis of the same, a charge sheet was issued on 11-6-1991. Hesubmitted his explanation for the said charge sheet. Having not satisfied with theexplanation, an enquiry was conducted. The Enquiry Officer submitted a reportholding him guilty of the charges. The disciplinary authority, after following theformalities, passed an order of removal dated 16-3-1992. Aggrieved by the same, hefiled an appeal and the same was also dismissed. Having no other option, he raiseda dispute under Section 2-A(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act,1947, which was takenup on file as I.D.No.724 of 1993 by Labour Court-III, Hyderabad. The Labour Courtafter considering the entire material placed before it, found that though the chargesare proved, they are being technical in nature, the punishment of removal fromservice was disproportionate to that of the misconduct committed and directedreinstatement of the petitioner with continuity of service and all other attendantbenefits, but without any back wages. Challenging the same, the present WritPetition is filed.

It is the case of the petitioner that the Labour Court having held that the charges aretechnical in nature and the removal from service is not justified and the same isdisproportionate to that of the misconduct alleged, ought to have granted the relief ofback wages also and denial of back wages is arbitrary and illegal.

Though no counter is filed, learned counsel for the respondents strenuouslycontended that the Labour Court itself has taken a lenient view of the matter andgranted all the reliefs, such as, reinstatement, continuity of service and other attendant benefits except the denial of back wages. The Award of the Labour Courtis just, proper and does not call for interference of this Court under Article 226 of theConstitution of India.

I have given my earnest consideration to the respective submissions made by thelearned counsel on either side and perused the entire material made available onrecord including the impugned Award.

At the outset, I am of the opinion that the Labour Court has not committed any errorin denying back wages to the petitioner while granting the relief of reinstatement,continuity of service and attendant benefits. Though the Labour Court held that thecharges are technical in nature, on a perusal of the very charge sheet itself wouldshow that the charges are serious in nature, in view of the fact that the petitionerfailed to issue tickets to 6 passengers and they were found alighting at stage No.28without any ticket. Further, the petitioner has closed the SR for all the denominationsat stage No.28 without completing the issue of tickets against those six passengers.In fact, this is very serious misconduct. However, the Labour Court took a lenientview and held that the violation is technical in nature, which is not so and grantedthe relief of reinstatement with continuity of service and other attendant benefits,except denial of back wages. In the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of theview that the Labour Court has not committed any error in denying back wages whilegranting other reliefs to the petitioner. The Writ Petition is devoid of merits and liableto be dismissed.

Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed. No order as to costs.