Heard Sri v. Narasimha Goud

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitirtion 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 direction particularly one in the nature of Writ of CERTIORARI arrd quash the impugned award dt. 23-4-2OO3 made in l.D.No. 21812001 on the file of the Labour Court-|, Hyderabad, published on 04-7-2003, in so far as denying the back-wages and other attendant benefits as arbitrary, unjust and in violation of Art. 14, 16 and 21 of the constitution of lndia and consequently direct the respondents-Corporation to extend all the consequential benefits including the backwages in the interest of justice and fair play tA NO: 2 OF 2023 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 direct the respondents to extend the consequential benefits if any 3rd petitioners late father is entitted to may be kindly be paid to his mother/ 2nd petitioner in case the petitioners succeed in the matter in the interest of justice and fair play. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI V. NARASIMHA GOUD Counsel for the Respondents: SRI R. ANURAG (SC FOR TSRTC) The Court made the following: ORDER THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAMAVARAPU RAIESHWAR RAO WRIT PETITION No.18476 OF 2OO5 ORDER The present Writ Petition is filed seeking a Writ of Certiorari to quash the award dated 23.04.2003 in I.D.No.21Bl2001 on the file of the Labour Court-I, Hyderabad, published on 04.07.2003, insofar as it denies back-wages and attendant benefits. as arbitrary, unjust, and violative of Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India.

2. Heard Sri V. Narasimha Goud, learned counsel for the petitioners, and Sri R. Anurag, learned Standing Counsel for TSRTC, appearing for the respondents. Perused the material on record.

3. Brief facts of the case are that petitionei- No.1, K. Venugopal, joined the service of the respondent-Corporation as a Conductor in May 1992, and his services were regular-ised with eFfect from 13,09.1996. He continued in service diligently until he was removed from service by the 1't respondent vide order dated 14.02.2001. Being aggrieved by his removal, the petitioner preferred an appeal, which was rejected by the 2nd respondent on t7.04.2001 . Thereafter, he filed a review before the 3'd respondent, which was also dismissed on 10.09.2001. Subsequently, the petitioner raised an industrial dispute before the Labour Court-I, Hyderabad, in LD.No.218 of 2001.

4. On 20.10.2000, while operating bus service on route No.204 From Gandicheruvu to Dilsukhnagar, a check was conducted at Gandicheruvu X-roads by the checking officials. The officials alleged certain irregularities and issued a memo. Subsequenfly, the petitioner was suspended on 09.11.2000 and a charge-sheet was issued, alleging the following cha rges : Charge 1: For having failed to account 11 tickets from 292/706373 to 383 and 387 of Rs.3-75 issued to the passengers who boarded the bus at Gandicheruvu and bound for pedda Amberpet Ex,stages 14 to 11, which constitutes mis-conduct under Reg.28(vi)(a) of ApsRTC Employees (Conduct) Regulations 1963. Charge 2: For having faited to punch and account four (4) tickets to four passengers i.e., from 282/706383 to 386 of Rs.3-75 paise issued to the passengers who boarded at Gandicheruvu and bound for pedda Amberpet, Ex-stages 14 to 11, which constitutes mis-conduct under Reg.28(xxxii) of APSRTC Emptoyees (Conduct) Regutations 1963.

5. The petitioner explained that the servjce he was operating was a sub-urban service and tickets were issued on the run. After issuing tickets to all passengers, when he was about to close the S.R., the checking officials boarded the bus and prevented him from closing it, thereby wrongly implicating him. In fact, all the tickets mentioned in the charges were correctly issued and punched. l 6. Despite the petitioner's explanation, the 1tt respondent removed him from service on apparently suspicious grounds, and the 2nd and 3'd respondents upheld the action without proper consideration ' T.TheLabourCourt,aFterholdingthatthedomesticenquirywasvalid' passedtheimpugnedawarddated23.o4.2oo3,reinstatingthepetitioner butdenyingback-wagesandotherattendantbenefits.Thepetitioner submits that from the date of removal until reinstatement in July 2003, he remained unemployed and suffered significant financial and personal hardship, as he was unable to obtain any alternate employment despite his best efforts. Being aggrieved by the denial of back-wages and attendant benefits, petitioner No.1 filed the present Writ Petition. S.LearnedcounselforthepetitionerssubmittedthattheLabourCourt erred by observing beyond the scope of the charges' Specifically' the court assumed that the petitioner intentionally detained earlier tickets and re-issued them, an observation which is not supported by the evidence. He Further submitted that petitioner No.1 is no morer and the legal representatives of the deceased petitioner have been brought on record vide order dated 19.08.2025' g. While finalizing the award, the Labour Court vide order dated

23.O4.2003 observed as follows: "(12) The explanation offered by the petitioner herein under the above said documents that he was unwell and 4 his father had some health probtem were concocted and that he punched the said 4 tickets but it was hurriedly not properly done is only an after thought. The perusat of the said 4 tickets clearty shown that there was no punching at all. The petitioner intentionally detained with him the earlier tickets and re-issued to the passengers and also not accounted in the S. R. "

10. Learned counser for the petitioners submits that once the tickets were with the passengers, intention cannot be inferred. The Labour Court's assumption regarding re-issuance is without basis in the evidence 11' Learned standing counser appearing for the respondents submitted that ihe L.abour Court deart within the scope of the charges and, once charges are proved, the award cannot be interfered with. L2. on perusal of the record, it is observed that the Labour Court found that the tickets of Rs.3.75 were not punched and concluded that the petitioner inte n tio na lly committed misconduct by re- issu ing them. However, there is no evidence to support the conclusion rega rding intentionar re-issuance of tickets. The onry proven faurt is the non- punching of the tickets, which constitutes negligence. It is rurther noted that the petitioner re-issued the tickets, which cannot be considered a fault, and the total amount involved is Rs.55.55. Under these circumstances, the. order of removal from service passed by the 1rr respondent, which was confirmed by the Znd and 3d responde nt is minor negligence involved. Althouqh the non_ d isproportio n a te to the {- 5 punching of tickets constitutes a fault' it is minor in petitioner is entitled to reinstatement into service w back wages and service. For the said negligence' the denial of full attendant benefits by the labour Court in I'D'No'218 of 2001 is incorrect ith continuitY of nature, and the and unjust.

13. It is also apparent that the Labour Court acted beyond the scope of the charges by attributing that the petitioner intentionally re-issued the tickets to the passengers' The charges framed against the petitioner are only with regard to non-punching of tickets' and no charge was framed regarding re-issuance of tickets ' L4. In view of the above facts and circumstances of the case' to 50o/o of the back wages and petitioners Nos.2 and 3 are entitled attendant benefits of the deceased petitioner No'1' Accordingly, the Writ Petition is partly allowed There shall be no

15. order as to costs' As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending' if any' in this Writ Petition, shall stand closed' //TRUE COPY// SDI. ,$tiftY HIE,EFRRX SECTI ON OF FIcE \ To 1 2

3. 4 5 6o MANAGER, APSRTC Bus DePot, PSRTC, Hyderabad Division, Dilsukhnagar' SRTC, Hyderabad City Region' JBS' Picket' Hbya thnagar, R.R. District' THE DEPOT The Divisiona I Manager, A erabad. Hvd Reg ional Manager, AP The Secunde rabad One CC to SRI V. NARASIM HA GOUD, Advocate IoPucl One CC to SRI Two CD CoPies BN R. ANURAG (SC FOR TSRTC) IOP ucl HIGH COURT DATED:1211112025 I o -o't * 'on rle s 14 r 1 0 ttAB 2026 ((l(' .c" i; -l'./7 l-cHr: ---=ORDE R WP.No.18476 ot 2005 PARTLY ALLOWING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS