'1. APSRTC v. 1. D. Laxmaiah

Petition Under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to call for the records pertaining to lD.No.13'l/2003 on the fite of lndustrial Tribunal cum Labour Court-lll, Hyderabad and quash the award Dt. 27.4.2OO5 by issuing appropriate writ order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of certiorari. l.A.NO:1 OF 200s (WPMP.NO:26857 OF 2005) Petition Under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to suspend the operation of the Award in 1.D.No.131 of 2003 dt. 27.4.2005 on the file of the lndustrial Tribunal cum Labour Court-lll Hyderabad pending disposal of the above writ petition. / / Counsel for the Petitioners : SRI R.ANURAG (SC FOR TSRTC) Counsel for the Respondent No.1 : SRI S.M.SUBHAN Counsel for the Respondent No.2 : GP FOR LABOUR The Court made the following ORDER / // THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE PULLA ITARTHIK WRIT PETITION No.2O995 OF 2OO5 ORDER: This Writ Petition is irled under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking the following relief: "...to call for the records pertairlulg to 1.D.No.131/2OO3 ott the file of Industiol Tribunal cum Labour Court III, Hyderobad and quash the auard DI.27.4.2OOS lry issuing appropnate urit order or direction more particularlV one in the nahre of uil of certiorari end pa-ss -su.h ofher or<Ler or orders -..."

2. The facts of the case are as follows: Respondent No. I was appointed as a Conductor in the petitioner-Corporation in the year 1989. While performing his duties on O2.O3.2OO3, a check was conducted, during which, it was found that respondent No. I failcd to collect the fare and also failed to issue tickets to Iive passengers. Consequently, three charges were framed against respondent No. 1, for which, he submitted his explanation. Thereafter, a domestic enquiry was conducted and as the charges levelled against respondent No. I were proved therein, petitioner No.2 removed respondent No.1 from service by an order dated O6.08.20O3. Challenging the same, the petitioner liled I.D.No. 13l of 20O3 before respondent No.2/Labour Court-III, which was allowed, uide Award dated 27.O4.2OO5, setting aside the removal order, dated 06.08.2003, and directed reinstatement of respondent No. t into service with continuity of service but without back wages and attendant benefits. Aggrieved .> \ l,ti,., wp 20995-2005 by the said Award, the petitioner Corporation hled the present Writ Pctition.

3. Hr:ard Sri R.Anurag, learned Standing Counse I for Telangana Road Transport Corporation, appearing for the petitioners and Sri S.M.Subhan, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.1.

4. karned Standing Counsel for the petitioners contends that the L.abour Court failed to appreciate that there rvere only nine p.rssengers in the bus and respondent No. 1 l-rad allorved five passengers to travel in tl"e bus from Manyamkonda Devasthanam Hills till the place of check i.e., Ex-stages 7 to 7 15. ivithout tickets, rvhich indicates the gross negligence by respondent No. I towards his duties. Further, the labour Court failed to appreciate that the passengers in question really been in a drunken condition, rclusing to t.ender the requisite fare; respondent No.l ought to have stopped the bus and requested the passengers to get down from the bus. It is further contended that the l.atrour Court had exceeded its jurisdiction in re-appreciating the evidence to hold the charges levelled against respondent No. 1 as proved to be a mistake and not amounting to misconduct. As such, the Labour Court, rvhilc granting reinstatement erred in granting continuity of service. Therefore, learned Standing Counsel for the petitioners / // PK,J $ p_2O99 5_2O05 prays this Court to set aside the impugned Award, dated /

27.O4.2OO5, passed in I.D.No. 131of 2003.

5. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent No.1 submits that the Labour Court, after considering the spot explanation of respondent No.1 (marked as Ex.M3-A), rightly concluded that the incident occurred under compelling circumstances. In his explanation, respondent No.l clearly stated that the passengers were in a drunken condition and questioned as to why they have to pay Rs.S/- each and created a commotion, got into an altercation and assaulted him. In response, at the instance of respondent No.1, the driver was able to stop the bus only at Kalnaarl, as there was no road clearance. However, in the meantime, the checking oflicia.ls boarded the bus and conducted the inspection without hearing the version of respondent No. l. The same plea, as stated in the spot explanation, was also taken by respondent No.l in his explanation to the charge memo and the charge sheet. It is further submitted that respondent No.1 did not commit any mistake and is not guilty of any misappropriation. As such, the ["abour Court rightly held that the conclusion regarding the charges levelled against respondent No.l being proven was a mistake only, not amounting to misconduct. Therefore, the Labour Court rightly set aside the removal order dated 06.08.2003 and directed the 4 \ Pi\'r wp-20995-2005 petitioners to reinstate respondent No. 1 into service with continuity of service. Thus, learned counsel prays this Court to dismiss the writ Petition.

6. This Court has taken note of the submissions made by learned counsel for the respective parties.

7. A perusal of record clearly reveals that thc Labour Court directed the petitioners to implement the Award, d,ated 27.O4.2OO5, within one month from the date of its publication under Section 17 of the In<lustrial Disputes Act, 1947 . Pursuant to the same, respondent No.l was reinstated into service. Hence, this Court is not inclined to interfere with that portion of the Award.

8. Nos' the only point for adjudication of this Clourt is whether I the Labour Court was right in granting conLinuity of service?

9. A perusal of the record discloses that after carefully considering the spot explanalion, the charge rnemo and the evidence adduced during the domestic enquiry, the Labour Court categoricallv found that the charges framed against respondent No. 1 were estabtished only to the extent of a mistake made under compelling circumstances. It was specifica-lly observed that the passengers were in intoxicated condition and refused not only to pay the ftrre but also engaged iru uiol..rt altercation with / / 5 PK,J Wp 2O995-2OO5 respondent No.1 and even assaulted him, thereby, obstructing his ability to perform his duties in a normal manner. As such, this Court is of the considered opinion that the l,abour Court, in exercise of its powers under Section 1 1-A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, has rightly re-appreciated the evidence and arrived at a wel[-reasoned conclusion. Resultantly, directing reinstatement with continuitlr of service finds no error or a ground to interfere with the impugned Award dated 27.O4.2OO5. Hence, this Writ Petition is liable to be dismissed.

10. Accordingly, this Writ Petition is dismissed. Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. There shall be no order as to costs. SD/. AH E ABDULLAH KHAN ANT REGIS //TRUE COPY// CTION OFFICER To

1. Two CCs to GP FOR LABOUR, High Court for the Sta f Telangana at Hyderabad. [OUT]

2. O-ne CC to SRI RANURAG (SC FOR TSRTC) Advocate TOPUCI 3. One CC to SRI S.M.SUBHAN, Advocate [OPUC] 4. Two CD Copies SA LS W /a r'\-_ ;\ .) J t 2 I 0CI 2n25 ia' :. i, C. oF.s o7,1 6,.rfO HIGH COURT DATED:22 rc712025 ORDER WP.No.20995 of 2005 DISMISSING THE W.P WITHOUT COSTS. 1 \3 lo $