THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE P. MADHAVI DEVI
WRIT PETITION NO.34053 OF 2017
ORDER
This Writ Petition is filed by the petitioner seeking a Writ of Certiorari calling for the records pertaining to the award dt.19.04.2016 in I.D.No.73 of 1995 passed by the Industrial Tribunal, Hyderabad-I by declaring it as illegal and arbitrary and consequently to quash the award dt.19.04.2016 notified in G.O.Rt.No.444 dt.10.06.2016 in so far as denying continuity of service, attendant benefits and back wages and to direct the respondents to grant continuity of service, back wages and attendant benefits to the petitioner and to pass such other order or orders as this Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.
2. Brief facts leading to the filing of the present Writ Petition are that the petitioner was appointed as a Conductor in the year 1986. On 06.01.1994, when the petitioner was performing his duty as a Conductor on the bus route No.288-P Afzal Gunj to Pedda Mangalaram, a check was exercised by the Checking Officials of Regional Enforcement Squad at Stage No.16 Moinabad and it was found that the petitioner has committed certain cash and ticket irregularities, for which a charge sheet W.P.No.34053 of 2017 2 was issued and the petitioner was held guilty of charges. In view of the same, the petitioner was terminated from service by an order dt.29.04.1994. Against the said order, the petitioner raised Industrial Dispute No.73 of 1995 dt.19.04.2016 before the Labour Court-I, Hyderabad. The Tribunal, however, confirmed the termination order. Aggrieved, the petitioner filed W.P.No.26465 of 2010 and vide orders dt.24.02.2016, this Court allowed the Writ Petition and remanded the matter to the Tribunal with a direction to consider the case of the petitioner Conductor in terms of the Circular, dt.17.03.1992, and to reconsider and decide the matter. Accordingly, the Tribunal has reconsidered the matter and by order dt.19.04.2016, the Tribunal has directed the respondents to reinstate the petitioner into service with continuity of service but without back wages and other attendant benefits and further held that the petitioner is not entitled for the increments from the date of suspension till the date of reinstatement. Challenging the said award, the present Writ Petition is filed.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that there are four (4) charges framed against the petitioner, which are recorded by the High W.P.No.34053 of 2017 3 Court at page No.2 of its order. He submits that after remand to the Tribunal, the Tribunal has held Charge No.1 as not proved and the Charges 2 to 4 as proved.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri P.S.P. Suresh Kumar, submits that the Tribunal has found that the punishment of termination from service awarded by the respondents was too harsh and therefore, directed reinstatement of the petitioner into service. It is submitted that after setting aside the termination order, the Tribunal ought not to have denied continuity of service, back wages and attendant benefits to the petitioner. He submits that the Tribunal ought to have seen that a check was conducted at Stage No.16, whereas the passengers had boarded the bus at Stage No.17 and the distance between the two stages was 1/4th kilo metre and hence, the Circular dt.17.03.1992 would be applicable to the petitioner, a Conductor, who was in the process of issuing tickets. Since the petitioner had not collected any amount from the passengers, no malafide intention can be attributed to the petitioner and hence, there was no irregularity committed by the petitioner. He therefore seeks W.P.No.34053 of 2017 4 continuity of service, back wages and attendant benefits for the period from the date of removal till the date of reinstatement.
5. Learned Standing Counsel for respondent organisation, Sri N. Praveen Reddy, however submitted that under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, this Court cannot interfere with the punishment awarded by the respondents, which has been confirmed by the Labour Court unless the principles of natural justice have not been followed and the enquiry has not been conducted in accordance with the rules. It is submitted that the respondents have conducted fair enquiry in accordance with the regulations and the Labour Court in its award has categorically held the charges as proved. It is submitted that when the petitioner has been held guilty of charges of cash and ticket irregularity, denying continuity of service, back wages and other benefits is fair and reasonable.
6. Both the learned counsel relied upon various case law in support of their contentions.
7. Having regard to the fact that a check was conducted by the officials at Stage No.16 and the passengers have admittedly boarded the W.P.No.34053 of 2017 5 bus at Stage No.17, i.e., one stage before the check and the petitioner is relying upon the Circular dt.17.03.1992 issued by the respondent organization, it is deemed fit and proper to examine whether the Circular dt.17.03.1992 would apply to the facts of the case before this Court. The said Circular refers to job security to Conductors and the modifications to the Circular dt.24.09.1992. As per the said Circular and Item-II thereof, if a passenger/s is/are found without a valid ticket/s and does/do not cross fare stage, the Conductor is not liable for issue of charge memo, but if a passenger has paid the fare and remains without ticket even if he/they does/do not cross a fare stage, the Conductor is liable for issue of a charge memo.
8. On going through the enquiry report, it is noticed that admittedly the passengers have boarded the bus between Stages 17 and 16 and the petitioner has also admittedly not collected the fare from the passengers. Admittedly, the check was conducted before the bus reached Stage No.16. Therefore, the contention of the petitioner that there were no malafides on his part, cannot be brushed aside. It would have been another case if the petitioner had collected fare and not issued the W.P.No.34053 of 2017 6 tickets. But since the check was conducted in between Stages, and had not crossed the fare state, Item-II of the Circular would apply and the petitioner cannot be held liable for the alleged charges in the charge memo. However, one of the charges was held as proved against the petitioner and therefore, the punishment of termination was passed and thereafter, it has been modified to reinstatement into service but without continuity of service, back wages and other attendant benefits. In view of the fact that the petitioner has been reinstated into service, this Court deems it fit and proper to direct the respondents to treat the period from the date of removal till the date of reinstatement as continuity of service for purpose of retirement benefits only. However, with regard to back wages and other attendant benefits, this Court does not deem it fit and proper to interfere with the award. The judgments relied upon by the learned counsel for the respondents are with regard to awarding of back wages. Since this Court does not deem it fit and proper to interfere with the denial of grant of back wages and other attendant benefits, this Court does not deem it necessary to go into those judgments.
W.P.No.34053 of 2017 7
9. In view thereof, this Writ Petition is accordingly partly allowed. No order as to costs.
10. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, in this Writ Petition shall stand closed.
___________________________ JUSTICE P. MADHAVI DEVI Date: 20.09.2022 Krl/Svv