A.P.S.R.T.C v. The Presiding Officer, Labour Court-II

Counsel for the Respondents : GP FOR LABOUR T he Court made t he following : HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No : 13807 of 1999 ORDER : This writ petition is filed by the Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation (APSRTC) through its Regional and Depot Managers, challenging the validity of the award dated, 17th August 1998, passed I.D.No.32 of 1994 by the Labour Court-II, Hyderabad.

2. The 2nd respondent herein was appointed as a Conductor in APSRTC on 27th of May 1977. On

02.05.1985, while he was conducting the bus bearing No.AAZ-823 on the route from Kamareddy Karedpally, a check was exercised at Devanpally between stage Nos.1 and 2. As certain cash and ticket irregularities were noticed by the checking officials, disciplinary proceedings were initiated against the 2nd respondent by issuing a charge sheet dated

15.05.1985.

3. Though altogether five charges were framed against the 2nd respondent-workman, the main charges are with reference to charge numbers 2 and 3, in which, it is alleged that he has failed to collect fare and issue tickets to 16 passengers altogether, who were proceeding to different places. When the charges were denied by the 2nd respondent, a regular inquiry was conducted. Based on the inquiry report, disciplinary authority has passed an order of removal, which was confirmed by the appellate authority. But however, on the review petition filed by the workman, the review authority has ordered for fresh appointment of 2nd respondent, subject to certain conditions, without giving the benefit of past service and backwages. To the extent which is adverse to the workman, the Union has exposed the cause of the workman, and upon failure of getting conciliation, the matter was referred to the Tribunal by the Government under Section 10 (1)(C) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The reference is, “Whether the Regional Manager, APSRTC, Karimnagar is justified in depriving the workman Sri R.Salaiah from financial benefits for the past service rendered from

27.5.77 to 14.3.86 and imposing other condition in the order dt.1.9.85 if not what relief the workman is entitled to” ?

4. Before the Tribunal, no further evidence was let in by either of the parties. While re-appreciating the evidence on record, the Tribunal has found that the management has failed to prove the charge against the workman to the effect that the check was exercised at Devanpally. As per the evidence available on record, the Tribunal has found that the check was exercised infront of “Jeevandan” hospital in the town limits of Kamareddy. The Tribunal has mainly relied on the statement of a passenger by name Bathula Sathaiah, who was examined on behalf of the workman in the inquiry proceedings. The Tribunal has recorded a finding that in the absence of examination of any passengers in support of the charge levelled against the workman, the inquiry officer has committed an error by recording a finding that the check was exercised at Devanpally. The Tribunal has also opined that if really the check was exercised at Devanpally, the statements of the passengers ought to have been recorded along with the attesting signature of the service Driver, but even the service Driver was not examined in support of the case of the management. While appreciating the evidence, the Tribunal has also recorded a finding that the Conductor has issued tickets to all the passengers who boarded at Kamareddy and further recorded a finding that 15 to 20 passengers have boarded the bus on the way in the limits of Kamareddy, as such, the workman has not violated the rule of “issue and start”, as alleged. It is also noticed that there was heavy rush on the said date, which was a sandy day. Further, with reference to the orders passed by the Regional Manager, the Tribunal was of the view that the Regional Manager, having recorded the finding that the bus was overloaded and did not pass even one fare stage, has committed error by recording a finding that the workman has failed to collect fare and issue tickets to 16 passengers.

5. During the course of arguments, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the parties that after the orders of reinstatement passed by the Tribunal, the 2nd respondent-workman was reinstated, and asmuch as this Court has refused to grant any interim orders on

08.07.1999, all the wages due to the petitioner were also paid, and subsequently, on attaining the age of super-annuation, he has retired from service on 28th of February 2006.

6. Though it is submitted by the learned Standing Counsel that there were no reasons for the Tribunal to interfere with the orders passed by the Regional Manager, but however, it is always open for the Tribunal to re-appreciate the evidence on record. In this case, though it is the case of the management that the inspection has taken place after one fare stage of Devanpally, but however, relying on the deposition of one of the passengers by name Bathula Sathaiah, it was found by the Tribunal that infact the inspection was done infront of Jeevandan hospital in the town limits of Kamareddy itself. Further, there was also no other evidence to prove that the inspection was exercised at Devanpally but not at the town limits of Kamareddy.

7. In view of the examination of one of the passengers, who has deposed in favour of the workman, and also in view of the absence of any other valid and acceptable evidence on behalf of the management, it cannot be said that the findings recorded by the Tribunal are either perverse or illegal, warranting interference of this Court in this writ petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution. Even with regard to the charges framed against the workman, there was no allegation of misappropriation of any amount. The only charge was that the 2nd respondent did not collect fare and issue tickets to some of the passengers even after one fare stage, but as much as there is evidence to show that the check itself was exercised within the town limits of Kamareddy and not after one fare stage, there is no supporting material and evidence to prove the charges levelled against the petitioner. Further, taking into account the fact that the wages due to the petitioner were already paid in view of denial of interim orders by this Court, and as the workman has already retired from service on 28th of February 2006 on attaining the age of superannuation, I am of the view that it is not a fit case warranting interference of this Court under Article 226 of Constitution.

8. The writ petition is devoid of merit and it is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. ______________________ R. SUBHASH REDDY, J 23rd October 2008