1. APSRTC v. I V.S. REDDY

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 issue an appropriate writ, order or direction especially one in the nature of a writ of certiorari calling for the records relating to the impugned Award dated 15-12-2OOC made in lD No. 99/2005, the Labour Court-ll, Hyderabad Published on 21-4-2007 in GO Rt,No. 691 allowing the petition in part and directing the petitioners herein to reinstate the 1st respondent into service without conlinuity of service and other attendant benefits and without back wages quash the same as being bad, illegal, without jurisdiction and invalid. Counsel forthe Petitioners: SRI U. SHANTHI BUSHAN RAO FOR B.G UMA DEVI Counsel for the Respondent No.1 : --- Counsel for the Respondent No.2: GP FOR LABOUR The Court made the following: ORDER THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE PULLA I{ARTHIK ORDER: WRIT PETITION No.145O of 2OO8 Seeking to call for the records relating to i;npugned Award clated 07,02.2007 passcd in I.D. No.126/2O05 trv the Labour Court-lll, Hvderabad, published on 16.06.2007 in (],O Rr.No.868, the present Writ Petition is fiIed. 2) Heard Sri U.Shanthi Bushan Rao, learned ccunsel for the petitioners, lean-red Government Pleader for Labor.rr appearing for respondent No.2. None appears for respondent No L. 3) Brief facts of the case are that initially respondent No.1 was engaged as casual conductor on daily wage basis r'.'.e.f. 18.01.1992 and his servi.ces were regularized w.e.l.O7-O1-1993. Further, on lO.O4.2OO4 rvhile respondent No.1 was conducting t,us No.Apl0Z- 2547 enroute Chegunta-Gajwcl at about 8.50 hor-rrs. at Srage No.g, Karnalapally, the Checking olficials exercised a check wherein respondent No.1 was found to have committed cash and ticl(et irregularities. Consequently, charge Memo No.435 j'24 ,,vas issued to respondent No.1 at the spot, to which, he sub ritted his spot explanation. Thereafter, the petitioners have plar:e d respondent No.l under suspension and also issued charge sheet clated 17 .O4.2OO4 leveling threc charges. Further, as rh3 explanation submitted by respondent No.1 was found unsatis[a,:tol,1,, a reguiar wPI(, J wP 1450_2008 2 cnquiry was ordered nominating the Chicf Inspe ctor (Enquiries), Regional Manager's office, Sangareddy, as an Enquiry Officer, who conducted the enquiry duly affording reasonable opportunity to respondent No.1 and submitted enquiry report to the Disciplinary Authority holding that the charges are proved against respondent No.1. Basing the said enquiry report and after issuing show cause notice of rcmoval on 14.07 .2OO4, the Disciplinary Authority has passed final orders daLed 26.07.2004 removing respondent No.1 from service. The appeal and Review hled by respondent No.1 were rejected vide orders dated 29.1 7.2OO4 and 25.05.2004 by the Divisional Manager and Regional Manager respectively. Aggrieved by the samc, rcspondent No.1 filed I.D. No.99 of 2OO5 on the file of respondent l.lo.2 and the sarle was allowed in part by respondent No.2 vide impugned Award dated 07.O2.2OO7 directing reinstatement of respondent No.I into service without back wages and without seniority except counting the put up service for superannuation benefits and gratuity. Questioning the same, the petitioner-Corporation is before this Court. 4l Learned Standing Counsel for the petitioners contends that though the charges are proved against respondent No.1, the Labour Court has erroneously held that respondent No.1 is entitled lbr rein statement. The Labour Court failed to appreciate that J- Pl(, J \vp 1450 2008 r respondent No.1 failed to issue tickets in a mcallc r load of i 7 passengers including 2 licketless passengers. The l.abour Court has taken a lenient view tou,ards respondent No,l onlv on rhe ground that he cannot get another job, which cannot be countenanced. Therefore, the learned Standing Cou115s1 pravs Lo set aside the impugned Award dated, 07 .02,2007 However, learnecl Standing Counsel submits that pursuant ro the irrpugned Award, respondenr No. 1 was reinstated into service orr 04.os.2oo7 and posted at Zaheerabad Depot. 5) Per contra, the learned Government pleader cc,ntencls that the Labour Court passerl a reasoned order duly considering the entire evidence or-r record and thus prays to disnt ss the r,",rit petition. 6) This Court has taken note of the submissic n s made by respective counsel and perused the material on record 7) As can be secn from the impugned award, bclore the I_abour Court, respondcnt No.I has taken a specific plrai that trrvo passengers have boarded the bus at yerlamma Templ:. which is a request bus stage in between stage Nos.9 and ti, and after collect.ing the lare from them when respondent No.1 .,\,iis about to issue the tickets, the checking officials entered the bus, collected the SR and ticket tra.r, from him and as such he could,.r issue thc ! I -4 PI(, J Np 1.1SO 2008 tickets to those t\,\,'o passengers. The Labour Court having accepted the said contention and also considering the quantum of amount involved, had rightly allowed the LD. in part and ordered to reinstate the workman into service at the beginning scale of the conductor without back wages and without seniority except counting the put up service for superannuation benefits and gratuity. Therefore, this Court does not find any merit in the present writ petition and the same is liable to be dismissed. 8) Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed Miscellaneous pe titions pending, if any, shall stand closed No costs //TRUE COPY' SD/. M, NAGAMANI ASSISTANT REGISTRAR '/.G- SECTION OFFICER To, One CC to SRI B.G.UIVA DEVI, Advocate [OPUC] Two CCs to GP FOR LABOUR, High Court for the State of Telangana [OUTJ 2 Two CD Copies \ KKS GJPw \ ( ',1, [:. T' S 4 c s( +' c) (' B 0 ilrtl IUI o FATcHqr) a HIGH COURT DATED:0510812025 ORDER WP.No,1450 of 2008 DISMISSING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS b c{tj> X@'