Learned counsel for v. Siddhartha Goud submits that Labour Court failed to appreciate the fact that tick

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 or order, direction, particularly one in the nature of WRIT OF CERTIORARI, quash the impugned award dated 1010212021 made in l.D. No. 167 ol 2018, published on 0510712021 on the file of Labour Court-|, Hyderabad in so far as not granting the reinstatement into service along with benefits as arbitrary, unjust, and in violation of Art. 14 & 21 of the Constitution of lndia and consequently the petitioner pray this Honourable Court may be pleased to direct the respondents to reinstate the petitioner into service along with all other consequential benefits in the interest of justice and fair play. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI V. SIDDHARTHA GOUD Counsel for the Respondents: SRI R. ANURAG (SC FOR TSRTC) The Court made the following: ORDER HON,BLE SRI JUSTICE NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA WRIT PETITION No.2O 801 oF 2o,2L OR DER: Assailed in this Writ Petition is the Award dated tO.O2.2O2l in I.D No 167 of 2Ol8 on the f-rle of the l-abour Court-I, Hyderabad on the ground that Labour Court clid not grant reinstatement into service along with benehts' and lhat the order is arbitrary, unjust' and in violation of Articles 14 anci 21 of the Constitutron of lndia Consequently' the petitioner prays for thc tssuance of a direction to the resporldents to reinstate him into servicc \\'ith all consequential bcnt fits'

2. Petitioner claims respondent CorPoration as to have .loinecl the services of Conductor in APril, 199 1 after his se n,ic(:S rvere petitroner worked undergoing thc due selection Process; from 01.O 1.1993. Il is stated' regularized diligently till he was rcmoved from service by the 4'l' respondent on 24.1O.2O17, on the charges of cash and ticket irregularities' Revision, and review against removai order by orde rs dated 15'1'1'2077 ' 12'12 2017 rejected Appeal, ' \ \ 2 )

09.08.2018, respectively. Aggrieved by these decisions, he raised Industrial Dispute. Petitioner contends that on 13.O6.2017, while conducting inter state bus service from Hyder4bad to Raichur, a check was exercised by the checking officials between stage No. 1 1 and 12. He was accused of issuing three luggage tickets to three passengers instead of passenger tickets. Based on this, he u,as suspended on 27.06.20 17 and a charge sheet was issued on the same day alleging that he collected fare from passengers and issued luggage tickets instead of passenger tickets, which amounted to serious misconduct under Regulation 28(x) of the TSRTC Employees (Conduct) Regulations, 1963. Petitioner explained that while generating tickets, he inadvertentiy pressed luggage ticket mode on TIMS keyboard instead of passenger ticket mode. He stated that this was unintentional and pointed out that he had issued two valid tickets of Rs. 12/- to other passengers. Despite this explanation, domestic enquiry was conducted and trnquiry Officer found the charge to be proved. As a result, petitioner was removed from service. \ ) It is stated that Labour Court upheld the validity of the domestic enquiry, however, modified the punishment from removal to compulsory retirement, which petitioner argues is not provided for in the Regulations of the respondent Corporation. Petitioner has therefore, approached this Court seeking to quash the Award and reinstate him with full beneftts.

3. Learned counsel for petitioner Sri V. Siddhartha Goud submits that Labour Court failed to appreciate the fact that ticketing error was unintentional. He points out that out of 61 passengers, only 3 were found u,ith iuggage tickets. It is argued that the Labour Court made a grave error by considering the spot explanation and not interfering with the proceedings. It is submitted that explanation was submitted within seven days of receiving the charge sheet and the Court failed to appreciate that once the charge sheet was issued and the enquiry was conducted, any material collected before the charge sheet lost its relevance. Lastly, it is argued that Labour Court failed to adopt the principle that when there are two possible views on a matter, one favourable to the worker, who is in a weaker position compared to the management, should be adopted. The \ 4 petitloner claims that the Court instead adopted an anti-labour approach, resulting in an unjust and unfair award' In the counter-affidavit, the Corporation stated that 4. petitioner had a history of misconduct, including being censured thrice and l-raving his annual increments deferred eight times for various irregularities He was also placed under suspension on 29.O9 .2OOl for cash and ticket irregularities and removed from service on 16'07 '2OO2 ' In the instant case' petitioner was found to have issued luggage tickets worth Rs 6/- instead of valio passenger tickets rvorth Rs' 126l- to three passengers whlch is a cieiiberate act of misconduct' resulting in hnancial loss to Corporation As a result' petitioner was suspended on 27.06.2A17 arld a charge sheet was issued the same day. It is stated that pctitioner was given an opportunilv to submit his explar-ration to the charge sheet on 03 07 2077 which u,as fcund unsatisfactory' The disciplinary authority ordered a detaiied enq-uiry and the Bnquiry Officer conducted proceedings in accordance u'ith the Regulations' The Enquiry Oflrcer sent two intimation letters dated 25 'OT '2017 and 31.08.2017 to petitioner's residential address to attend the ' ) enquiry along with evidences and witnesses During the course of enquiry, the Enquiry Officer recorded tl-re statements of Sri G. Jairaju in the presence of petitioner and subsequently petitioner was grven opportunity to cross-examine the management witness, but he did' not avail the same Thus' a fair enquiry was conducted in accordance wlth the Regulations of the Corporation and by following principles of natural justice' .,) It is stated, afler a detailed enquiry' lhe trnquiry Ofhcer submitted report on 18'09 2017' Iinding all charges against petitioner proved' Petitioner submitted objections to the report on 05.10.2017' The Disciplinary AuthoritY' aftcr reviewing the objections, issued Show Cause Notice for removal on 1O.10.2O17. Petitioner acknowledgeci it on 12 lO'2O17 and submitted explanation on 16' 10'2O17 Th,e Depot Managcr which Petitioner issued removal order

24.1o .2077 , acknowledged on 27 'lO '2017 ' It is stated further that Labour Court found that charges were proved and petitioner's claim about enquiry being falsewasdismissed.TheCourthighlightedthatpetitionerhad \ \ 6 issued invalid tickets worth Rs. 6/- instead of Rs' 126/-, which could have caused a ioss to the Corporation. This misconduct led to a loss of trust in petitioner. However, the Labour Court deemed compulsory retirement a proportionate punishment'

5. Sri R. Anurag, learned Standing counsel for the Corporation argues that petitioner's conduct was detrimental to the financial interests of the corporation, and the charges against him were substantiated through a fair enquiry process' It is contended that the Labour Court, after considering the matter in detail, found the charges against petitroner to be valid and concluded that petitioner's actions resuited in a breach of trust and financiai loss to Corporation. However, the Labour Court modihed the punishment to compulsory retirement, which, the respondent argues is a proportionate punishment' It is also submitted that Labour Court's decision is well- reasoned and that there is no merit in the petitioner's claim for reinstaLemenl. After careful consideration of the material on record

6. and on hearing learned counsel on either side, it is evident that '! ) 7 I petitioner has not disputed the fact that he issued lttggage ticketsinsteadofpassengertickets.Theexplanationsubmitted by him that this was an lnadvertent mistake due to pressing the wrong key on TIMS keyboard does not appear to be convincing' He has a duty to ensure that correct tickets were issued for' faiiure to do so results in hnancial loss to the Corporation lt is also to be noted that domestic enquiry conducted by the Corporation was found to be valid by the Labour Court and petitioner was given ample opportunity to present his case' The Enquiry Officer recorded the statements of lr'ilnesses and provided petitloner an opportunity to cross-examine the m u'hich proves that there is no procedural irregularities in conducting the enquiry. Hence, this Court is of the view that Labour Court has rightly concluded that charges against petltioner werc substantiated' lt is always to be borne in mind that the Hon'ble 7 . Supreme Court in a catena of judgments he1cl thal the pou'er of judicial review is not directed against the det isiorr but is confined to the decision making process This Court does not sit in ju$gment on merits of the decision' It is not open to the High ) 8 Court to re-appreciate and re-appraise the evidence 1ed before the Inquiry Officer as a Court of appeal and reach its orvn conclusions. As is evident from the material on record, the enquiry was conducted properly and the Labour Court rightly uphold the hndings of the Enquiry Ofhcer.

8. The Labour Court, therefore, modified the punishment from removal to compulsory retirement with all benefits which are payable to the retirrng emplovees, treating the date of removal as date of retirement. This modification was done in the iight of petitioner's long seruice u.ith the Corporation and the fact that misconduct, though serious, did not warrant immediate removai from service. Labour Court's decision to modify the punishment is a reasonabie and proportionate response to the misconduct. Section 11-A of the Industrial Disputes Act. 1947 confers power on the Labour Court in the course of adjudication procee,Jrr-rgs to consider the gravity of the punishment and au,ard a lesser punishment in ir-.:it of discharge or dismissal, if the circumstances so requi,:e. In this connection, petilioner's contdntion that punishment of compulsory retirement is not listed in the Regulations of the Corporation, l 't I ( 9 hence, he may be directed to be reinstated into service, is without merit. This Court therefore, ltnds no reason to interfere with the Aw'ard impugned and the Writ Petition is liab1e to be dismissed- 9 The Writ Petition is accordingly, dismissed. No

10. Consequently, miscellaneous Applications, if any shall stand closed //TRUE COPY// SDI.S. MALLIKARJ UNA RAO .TANT REGISTRAR uECTION OFFICER \ To, I - 3ffi 33lS 3Fl[ ?',33SSiS3'"""#?sAlbi rj'toPuc] 2 J Two CD CoPies BN GJP {n- HIGH COURT DATED:3010112025 ORDER WP.No.20801 of 2021 1 $g STAI5 o -) ..) 23 lPfl ?ffi + DFsrarC*9O DISMISSING THE WRIT PETITION WITH UT COSTS A Lr o (