THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R.KANTHA RAO WRIT PETITION NO.22498 OF 2003 Between:-
The Depot Manager, APSRTC., Kurnool-II Depot.
…Petitoner And The Industrial Tribunal cum Labour Court, Ananthapur, rep. by its Presiding Officer and another.
…Respondents.
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R.KANTHA RAO WRIT PETITION NO.22498 OF 2003 ORDER:
This writ petition is filed seeking writ of certiorari to quash the award passed by the Labour Court, Ananthapur dated 10-4-2003 in I.D.No.87 of 2000.
The brief averments of the writ petition may be stated as follows:- The second respondent was a lady and she worked as conductor in the petitioner corporation. She was appointed on compassionate grounds on account of the death of her husband while working as conductor in APSRTC. On 23-12-1997 while the second respondent was on duty as conductor, the checking officials of Regional Enforcement Squad, Kurnool made a surprise check at Stage No.6 and allegedly detected certain cash and ticket irregularities.
Pursuant to the aforesaid irregularities, the Corporation framed the following charges against the second respondent:-
i) For having issued unpunched tickets bearing No.311/815795 to 798 to four individual passengers, who boarded the bus at Gudur and bound for Nagalapuram Ex-Stages 7 to 5/4 duly collecting requisite fare of Rs.4/- from each at their boarding point itself, with a malafide intention to enable yourself for reissuing of the said tickets in further journey of the service which constitutes misconduct in terms of Reg.28(vi)(a) of APSRTC Employees (Conduct) Reg.1963.
ii) For having kept the blank tray numbers of Rs.4/- denomination in the SR in Units and Tens place against the Stage No.6 with an intention to issue the tickets without showing the number of issues which constitutes misconduct in terms of Reg.28(xxxii) of APSRTC Employees (Conduct) Reg.1963.
iii) For having wrongly shown the number of passengers as “40” instead of “24” in the SR at place earmarked to misguide the authorities which constitutes misconduct in terms of Reg.28(xxxii) of APSRTC Employees (Conduct) Reg.1963.
A Departmental enquiry was initiated against the second respondent by appointing an enquiry officer and the enquiry officer submitted a report, stating that all the charges have been proved against the second respondent. The report of the enquiry officer was accepted by the disciplinary authority and punishment of removal from service was imposed against the second respondent. The second respondent filed an appeal before the appellate authority and the said appeal was dismissed. Thereafter, she preferred a revision and the same was also dismissed.
Feeling aggrieved, the second respondent raised an Industrial Dispute in I.D.No.87 of 2000 on the file of the Chairman-cum-Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal-cum- Labour Court, Ananthapur. The learned Tribunal upon reappraisal of the evidence on record, found that the punishment imposed was grossly disproportionate to the proved misconduct and directed to impose punishment of deferment of two increments with cumulative effect and reinstate the second respondent into service with continuity of service and attendant benefits but without any back wages till the date of filing of the claim petition i.e., till 3-3-2000. However the Tribunal held that the second respondent is entitled for 1/4th of the back wages from 3-3-2000 till the date of passing award.
I have heard the learned standing counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for respondent No.1 and also the learned counsel appearing for the second respondent.
The learned Tribunal upon considering the evidence and other material available on record, found that the tickets mentioned in charge No.1 were unpunched and the second respondent failed to close the Units and Tens places of Rs.4/- denomination against Stage No.6. The Tribunal also found that the entries in the SR itself prove the charges 2 and 3 and it is an admitted fact that the second respondent kept blank the number of Rs.4/- denomination in the Units and Tens places and she has wrongly shown the number of passengers as 40 instead of 24. However, the Tribunal took into consideration that no malafide intention can be attributed to the second respondent for unpunching the tickets as there is no material available on record to show that she failed to punch the tickets with a view to collect again the said tickets from the passengers for the purpose of reissuing them. The Tribunal also noticed that the evidence of TTI- B.V.Swamy shows that at the time of issuing tickets of Rs.4/- denomination, some passengers started quarrelling with the second respondent demanding balance amount and therefore, she might have forgotten to punch the tickets. The Tribunal further expressed the view that while closing the SR of Rs.4/-, the second respondent entertained a doubt with regard to the number of issues and while she was again verifying the bus pass holders, by which time the checking authority made the surprise check. Considering all these aspects, the Tribunal was of the view that the second respondent who was a lady bus conductor was under confused state at the time of issuing tickets and closing the SR as there were admittedly several free bus pass holders in the bus.
Though the charges have been proved, the learned Tribunal rightly considered that the punishment of removal from service under the aforesaid circumstances is shockingly disproportionate to the proved misconduct. The Tribunal is also in my view justified in imposing punishment of deferment of two increments with cumulative effect and directing the petitioner herein to reinstate the second respondent into service with continuity of service and attendant benefits. The Tribunal however, declined to grant the back wages till the date of filing of the claim petition i.e., till 3-3-2000, but held that she is entitled for 1/4th of the back wages from 3-3-2000 till the date of award. The learned Tribunal did not assign any reasons for granting 1/4th of the back wages from the date of raising the Industrial Dispute till the date of passing the award.
In this context, it is relevant to note the Judgment relied on by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner-Corporation in The Depot Manager, A.P.S.R.T.C., Bus Depot, Karimnagar Vs. V.Chandra
[1]
Reddy and another , the learned Single Judge of this Court held as follows:-
“Therefore, the only aspect to be considered is whether granting of back wages is valid or not. Respondent No.2 held that the enquiry conducted by the Corporation is valid and in the absence of any finding to the effect that respondent No.1 was not gainfully employed during the period, I am of the view that finding of respondent No.2 directing granting of 40% of the back wages cannot sustain. Accordingly, the order of respondent No.2 dated 18-4-1990 insofar as directing granting of 40% of the back wages to respondent No.1 is set aside. However, for the purpose of other aspects viz., continuity of service and other attendant benefits, if any, the order of respondent No.2 is not disturbed.”
Thus, in the instant case, this Court is of the view that the Tribunal went wrong in granting 1/4th of the back wages from the date of raising the Industrial Dispute till the date of passing of the award, as it failed to assign any reasons and more particularly in view of the fact that the Tribunal recorded a positive finding that all the charges have been proved against the second respondent. Therefore, the finding of the Tribunal, where under it granted 1/4th of the back wages is liable to be set aside and accordingly, it is set aside. The rest of the award is confirmed.
In the result, the writ petition is partly allowed setting aside the award of the Tribunal to the extent of 1/4th of the back wages from 3-3-2000 till the date of award. There shall be no order as to costs. The Miscellaneous Petitions pending if any shall stand closed.
R.KANTHA RAO,J Date: 5-06-2014 Shr.
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R.KANTHA RAO WRIT PETITION NO.22498 OF 2003 Date: 05-06-2014 Shr.
[1] 1993 (1) ALT 684