IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT HYDERABAD FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AND THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH MONDAY, THE NINETH DAY OF JUNE, TWO THOUSAND AND FOURTEEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R.KANTHA RAO WRIT PETITION No.19318 of 2003 Between:
N.Raghunatha Rao . PETITIONER And The Regional Manager (ICR) APSRTC, Jubilee Bus Station, Secunderabad and 2 others . RESPONDENTS The Court made the following:
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R.KANTHA RAO WRIT PETITION No.19318 of 2003
ORDER:
This writ petition is filed seeking issuance of a writ of mandamus declaring the award of the Additional Industrial Tribunal- cum-Additional Labour Court, Hyderabad passed in I.D.No.55/2000 dated 23.08.2002 in so far as not granting back wages and ordering withholding of 3 annual increments without cumulative effect as illegal and arbitrary.
I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned standing counsel appearing for the respondent APSRTC.
The brief facts relevant for disposing of the writ petition may be stated as follows:
The petitioner is Conductor in APSRTC. While he was conducting the bus on Route No.113-B on 04.03.1999 a surprise check was made during which it was found that one passenger was holding a ticket of Rs.5/- which was issued in the earlier trip. The check officials recorded the statement of the petitioner as well as one of the passengers and submitted a report to the Department against the petitioner. A memo was issued to the petitioner and the petitioner submitted his explanation denying the charge. He was placed under suspension by orders dated 11.03.1999. A domestic enquiry was held against the petitioner by appointing an Enquiry Officer. The Enquiry Officer in his report found that the petitioner is guilty of misconduct and submitted the same to the disciplinary authority. The disciplinary authority, having concurred with the findings of the enquiry officer, imposed punishment of removal from service against the petitioner. Against which, the petitioner preferred appeal and the same was dismissed. Thereafter, the petitioner preferred a revision and the same was also dismissed.
Ultimately, the petitioner raised an industrial dispute in I.D.No.55/2000 before the Additional Industrial Tribunal-cum- Additional Labour Court, Hyderabad. The Tribunal passed an award on 23.08.2002 setting aside the order of removal from service passed against the petitioner and directing reinstatement of the petitioner into service with continuity of service with all attendant benefits, but without backwages while withholding 3 annual increments without cumulative effect. The petitioner challenged the said award in so far as withholding of 3 annual increments without cumulative effect and for denying back wages.
The admitted facts in this case are that in the course of surplice check a ticket which relates to earlier trip was found issued by the petitioner to a passenger. The said ticket was admittedly sold in the earlier trip and was accounted for in the SR. The statement of the passenger who was holding the impugned ticket and a co-passenger was recorded in the presence of the petitioner and the petitioner made an endorsement to the effect that the statements were recorded in his presence. The petitioner gave his spot explanation stating that due to mistake he gave the ticket to a passenger which was already issued by him. Therefore, the misconduct of the petitioner was proved in the course of the domestic enquiry. The Tribunal also stated in its award that the petitioner did not challenge the validity of the domestic enquiry.
In the counter filed by the respondents, it is contended that the learned Tribunal having viewed the misconduct of the petitioner to be grave ought not to have ordered his reinstatement into service. In any event, as the Tribunal took a lenient view, the award passed by the Tribunal does not require any interference in the present writ petition. The Tribunal however in exercise of powers under Sec.11A of the Industrial Disputes Act thought that the punishment of removal was disproportionate to the misconduct of the petitioner, who rendered 5 years of unblemished service, reduced the punishment, as indicated above.
This Court in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India will interfere with the punishment imposed by the Labour Court only when it is unconscionable. If there is reasonable basis for the Tribunal for imposing a particular punishment, this Court will not normally interfere with the quantum of punishment. In the instant case, the Tribunal took lenient view and reduced the punishment imposed against the petitioner by the disciplinary authority to a large extent. Having regard to the misconduct which was established against the petitioner, this Court is not supposed to take a further lenient view and to interfere with the award of the Industrial Tribunal. Therefore, the writ petition deserves to be dismissed.
Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed. In the circumstances, there shall be no order as to costs.
Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed in consequence.
R.KANTHA RAO,J Date: 09.06.2014 Dsr