THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY and THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE CHALLA KODANDA RAM WRIT APPEAL No.745 of 2006 JUDGMENT: (per the Hon’ble Sri Justice L.Narasimha Reddy) The appellant was appointed as a Conductor in the A.P.S.R.T.C on 06.02.1992 and was regularized in that post on 01.04.1993. On 31.05.1994, he was conducting a suburban service between Koti and Koheda. A check was effected en route. Alleging that the appellant collected a fare of Rs.7.50 paise each from three passengers, but did not issue tickets, a charge sheet was issued. The explanation submitted by the appellant was found not satisfactory. Departmental Enquiry was conducted and all the three charges framed against him were proved. Taking the same into account, the second respondent passed an order dated 28.01.1995 removing the appellant from service. After exhausting the departmental remedies, the appellant filed I.D.No.107 of 1999 before the Industrial Tribunal-II, Hyderabad.
Through its award dated 12.01.2000, the Labour Court has set aside the order of removal and directed the reinstatement of the appellant without backwages. Punishment of stoppage of one increment was also imposed. Feeling aggrieved by the denial of backwages, the appellant filed W.P.No.20576 of 2001. The second respondent opposed the Writ Petition by filing counter-affidavit. The learned Single Judge dismissed the Writ Petition through order dated 17.03.2006. Hence, this Writ Appeal.
Heard Sri A.K. Jayaprakash Rao, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri N.Vasudeva Reddy, learned counsel for the second respondent.
On the basis of the lapses noticed in the check, three charges were framed against the appellant. The gist thereof is that he collected fare from three passengers, but did not issue tickets. In the domestic enquiry, all the three charges were held proved. In the I.D filed by the appellant, the Labour Court granted the relief as indicated in the previous paragraphs.
The principal grievance of the appellant is about denial of backwages. That would have been possible, if only the order of punishment was set aside by pointing out that there is serious infirmity in the enquiry or by holding that the charges against the employee are not proved.
In the instant case, the learned Single Judge has undertaken extensive discussion vis-à-vis the award passed by the Labour Court. A clear observation was made to the effect that the finding recorded by the Enquiry Officer that the charges are proved cannot be said to be wrong or defective. The Labour Court also took the view that the appellant is guilty of the charges framed against him.
Once the Labour Court agreed with the findings recorded in the domestic enquiry, the only way in which the relief can be granted is through discretion under Section 11-A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The relief granted to the appellant is referable only to that provision. The question of awarding backwages does not arise in such cases, particularly, when the punishment of stoppage of increment was also imposed. We do not find any basis to interfere with the order passed in the Writ Petition.
The Writ Appeal is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.
The Miscellaneous Petitions filed in this Writ Appeal shall stand disposed of.
L.NARASIMHA REDDY, J Date: 20.11.2014 CHALLA KODANDA RAM, J va