Telangana High Court
B. Somaiah, E. 342417, Conductor, ... vs The Depot Manager, Apsrtc, Warangal ... on 26 March, 2026
Author: Juvvadi Sridevi
Bench: Juvvadi Sridevi
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT
HYDERABAD
THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE JUVVADI SRIDEVI
WRIT PETITION No.13786 of 2008
DATED: 26th MARCH, 2026
Between:
B.Somaiah ...Petitioner
AND
The Depot Manager, APSRTC,
Hanamkonda Depot, Warangal District ...Respondent
O R D E R:
The petitioner has filed this Writ Petition, aggrieved by the Award dated 15.02.2000 passed by the Labour Court, insofar as it directs the appointment of the petitioner as a fresh recruit and imposes the penalty of stoppage of one increment with cumulative effect.
02. Heard Sri P.Venkateshwar Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Chandra Sekhar.N, learned Standing Counsel for Telangana State Road Transport Corporation, appearing for respondent and perused the record.
03. The petitioner joined the service of RTC as a Conductor in the year 1990, and his services were regularized in the year 2 1993. He was removed from service by order dated 16.06.1994 on the ground that he had issued seven tickets bearing Nos.080/894980 to 986 of Rs.2.75 denomination to seven individual passengers who boarded the bus at Warangal Stage No.1, with a slight invisible punch in 'UP', and failed to account for these issues in S.R. No. A0/3578748, dated 18.11.1993, against the Stage No.3. He also failed to show the ticket issues as '7' and did not clearly write '987' from Warangal to Fatima Nagar, Stage Nos.1 to 15. It was alleged that he intentionally wrote the due amounts on the reverse of some of those tickets so as to conveniently take back and re-issue the same, thereby defrauding the legitimate revenue of the Corporation. The petitioner further failed to observe the T.I.C. point at Mission Hospital and failed to collect fare and issue tickets to four passengers who boarded the bus at Mission Hospital bound for Laxmi Talkies (Ex-Stage 9/7 to 3) and were found travelling without tickets at Ashoka Talkies, Stage No.9/7. After conducting an inquiry, the petitioner was removed from service. The appeal and revision preferred by him were also rejected. Aggrieved thereby, he approached the Labour Court. Upon consideration of the matter, the Labour Court ordered reinstatement of the petitioner; however, he was directed to be treated as a "fresh recruit," and one 3 increment was stopped with cumulative effect after reinstatement. Aggrieved by the denial of continuity of service with all consequential benefits and back wages, the petitioner has approached this Court.
04. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that during the course of the inquiry, the petitioner was not supplied with the based and relevant documents of both the charge sheets thus the respondent-corporation has violated the regulations 12 of the Employees CCA Regulations. It is further contended that the checking officials failed to follow the instructions of the Corporation issued in MTD-267, which require that the statement shall be attested by the service driver and two independent witnesses, and that the TTIs shall record the correct postal addresses of the alleged passengers. However, only with a view to frame charges against the petitioner, the said procedure was not followed. It is also contended that in the absence of a list of witnesses, the charge sheet itself is illegal. The petitioner further submits that the TTIs failed to collect material evidence and to make proper endorsements in the official records, such as the Statistical Return Check Report (MTD 43/R), and intentionally avoided eliciting the 4 truth. The action of the respondent in not properly examining the evidence on record and in attributing guilt to the petitioner is stated to be contrary to the principles of natural justice and the CCA Regulations, 1987. It is also contended that the Labour Court, without appreciating the evidence on record in its proper perspective, denied continuity of service with all consequential benefits and back wages while ordering reinstatement. Accordingly, the petitioner prays that this Court may allow the writ petition by granting continuity of service with all consequential benefits and back wages.
05. On the other hand, the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the RTC contends that the Labour Court, in exercise of its powers under Section 11-A of the Industrial Disputes Act, set aside the order of removal and imposed a lesser punishment by directing reinstatement of the petitioner as a "fresh recruitee." It is further contended that, having regard to the misconduct proved against the petitioner, the punishment of removal from service was just and proper. However, the Labour Court, though erroneously exercising its jurisdiction in interfering with the punishment, has taken a lenient view and granted the relief of reinstatement while 5 rightly denying continuity of service, consequential benefits, and back wages. Accordingly, it is prayed that the writ petition be dismissed, as the punishment imposed is proportionate to the charges proved against the petitioner.
06. Having heard the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for both sides and upon perusal of the material available on record, it is apparent from the findings recorded in the impugned Award that, though the petitioner was found to have committed certain irregularities, the same were held to have occurred due to circumstances beyond his control, as the bus was carrying 99 passengers, which was far beyond its seating capacity. The Labour Court further observed that the petitioner had no mala fide intention to defraud the Corporation. On the basis of such findings, the Labour Court set aside the order of removal and directed reinstatement of the petitioner as a "Fresh Recruit". It was further directed that, after reinstatement, one increment shall be stopped with cumulative effect as a lesser punishment.
07. It is not in dispute that the charges levelled against the petitioner were proved in the domestic enquiry. Though the petitioner contended that there was violation of the principles of 6 natural justice and non-compliance with the procedural instructions of the Corporation, the Labour Court, upon appreciation of the entire evidence on record, did not find that the enquiry was vitiated. However, taking into consideration the surrounding circumstances, particularly the fact that the bus was carrying 99 passengers, which was beyond its seating capacity, and that there was no mala fide intention on the part of the petitioner to defraud the Corporation, the Labour Court exercised its discretion under Section 11-A of the Industrial Disputes Act and interfered with the punishment of removal.
08. It is well settled that under Section 11-A of the Industrial Disputes Act, the Labour Court is empowered to reappraise the evidence and modify the punishment if it finds the same to be disproportionate to the misconduct proved. In the present case, while holding that certain irregularities were committed, the Labour Court, taking a lenient view, set aside the order of removal and directed reinstatement of the petitioner as a "Fresh Recruit", while imposing the penalty of stoppage of one increment with cumulative effect. At the same time, the Labour Court denied continuity of service and back wages. This Court, in exercise of its jurisdiction 7 under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, does not sit as an appellate authority over the findings of the Labour Court. Unless the Award suffers from perversity, patent illegality, or jurisdictional error, interference by this Court is not warranted.
09. It is to be noted that the petitioner has not impleaded the Labour Court, which passed the impugned Award, as a respondent in the present Writ Petition. The petitioner has neither assigned any reason for such non-impleadment nor offered any explanation for not making the Labour Court a party to the proceedings.
10. Be that as it may, in the present case, the petitioner has failed to demonstrate that the findings recorded by the Labour Court are perverse, arbitrary, or contrary to law. On the contrary, the Labour Court has shown considerable leniency in granting the relief of reinstatement despite the misconduct proved against the petitioner. In such circumstances, the denial of continuity of service and consequential benefits cannot be said to be arbitrary or illegal. The punishment, as modified by the Labour Court, appears to be proportionate to the charges proved and does not warrant interference by this Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under the Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
8
11. Accordingly, this Writ Petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.
As a sequel, pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed.
___________________ JUVVADI SRIDEVI, J Date: 26.03.2026 Ksk/khrm