WA/1412/2011 of The Divisional Manager, APSRTC, Vs Sri S.Venkanna, on 29 December 2011

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMEDAND

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO

WRIT APPEAL NO.1412 OF 2011

ORDER:(Per Hon’ble Sri Justice Ghulam Mohammed)

The Andhra Pradesh Road Transport Corporation (A.P.S.R.T.C)against the Order rendered in W.P.No.396 of 2005, by a learned SingleJudge, has filed this writ appeal.

2. The first respondent was working as a casual Conductor with theA.P.S.R.T.C. On the ground that, he has indulged in cash and ticketirregularities detected during the check made on 17.04.2001 while he wasconducting the bus from Bhongir to Mahatma Gandhi Bus Station, he wasissued a charge Memo. Dissatisfied with his explanation, the Corporationappointed an Enquiry Officer, who found that the charge leveled against thefirst respondent was duly proved. Thereafter, termination order dated30.01.2002 was passed removing the first respondent-workman from service. The first respondent-workman raisedan Industrial Dispute I.D.No.28 of 2002 before the Labour Court-III,Hyderabad, under Section 2-A(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.The Labour Court deduced that the findings of the Enquiry Officer on thecharge were not correct. Basing on the aspects that, the charge framedagainst the petitioner was not proved, question of reissue of tickets is notestablished, no mis-conduct is proved and no misappropriation of tickets, theLabour Court set-aside the removal order and directed the Corporation toreinstate the first respondent into service and continuity of service and backwages. However, it was made clear that the period of suspension shall not becounted for any purpose. Challenging the award passed by the Labour Court,W.P.No.396 of 2005 was moved by the Corporation.

3. Entertaining the writ petition, the learned single Judge took note of thefact that the first respondent had already been reinstated in service and accordingly modified the earlier order of stay granted on 20.01.2005 bydirecting the Corporation to deposit 50% of the back wages payable as perthe Award of the Labour Court and permitted the first respondent to withdrawthe same without furnishing any security. However, the learned single Judgewhile concurring with the award of the Labour Court, has pointed out withregard to one aspect that the Labour Court has not disclosed any reason forgrant of full back wages to the first respondent. It was also held that, thepayment of back wages is no longer an automatic or inevitable consequenceupon a direction of reinstatement and that the Labour Court has to weighvarious factors in the course of this exercise and cannot mechanically grantor deny back wages. Considering the fact that the first respondent remainedout of service of the Corporation till he was reinstated, the learned singleJudge directed payment of 50% of the back wages, being the amount alreadywithdrawn by the first respondent, instead of full wages. Thus, the writ petitionwas partly allowed. Challenging the award passed in the writ petition, thepresent writ appeal has been preferred.

4. Learned counsel for the Corporation has placed reliance upon theJudgment of this Court rendered in E.H.N. REDDY VS. VICE CHARIMANAND MANAGING DIRECTOR, APSRTC, HYDERABAD, AND

OTHERS[[1]], contending that the charge leveled against the first respondentwas serious in nature and therefore, did not warrant any interference by theLabour Court.

5. We have heard learned counsel for the Corporation and learnedcounsel for the first respondent. Perused the material available on record. Inessence, the misconduct alleged against the Conductor with regard toreissue of tickets was held proved in E.H.N. Reddy’s case. This Court heldthat such reissue of tickets constitutes a grave misconduct. In the presentcase, the Labour Court, after a detailed enquiry, came to the conclusion thatthe charge of reissue of used tickets leveled against the first respondent wasnot proved. For this reason, E.H.N. Reddy’s case would not be attracted to the proceedings.

4. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case stated supra,we are clearly of the firm opinion that the learned Single Judge has notcommitted any error and in view of the same the writ appeal is dismissed. Nocosts.

_________________________________

JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED

_______________________________________

JUSTICE NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO

sp29.12.2011

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED

AND

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO

sp

[1]2006 (6) ALD 682

WRIT APPEAL NO.1412 OF 2011

29[th] December, 2011