Telangana High Court

The Depot Manager vs M.R. Das on 17 December, 2021

Bench: Satish Chandra Sharma, N.Tukaramji

  THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA
                                             AND
             THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE N. TUKARAMJI

                               W.A.No.742 of 2019

JUDGMENT:      (Per the Hon'ble the Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma)



        The present writ appeal is arising out of the order dated

16.11.2018 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.26735 of

2006.

        The undisputed facts of the case reveal that respondent

No.1/employee was subjected to a charge sheet and finally, the

same resulted in his dismissal from service on 02.07.2002. The

respondent No.1/employee, after his dismissal, preferred an appeal

and a review and both were dismissed. Thereafter, the respondent

No.1/employee filed a petition under Section 2-A(2) of the

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short 'the Act') before the Labour

Court. The Labour Court has discussed the entire evidence and

has, thereafter, arrived at a conclusion that no case is made out

against the respondent No.1/employee. In those circumstances,

the Labour Court passed an award dated 12.07.2006 directing

reinstatement of the respondent No.1/employee with back wages

and continuity of service. The appellant/corporation, being

dissatisfied with the award passed by the Labour Court dated

12.07.2006, has approached the learned Single Judge and the

learned Single Judge has also affirmed the award passed by the

Labour Court.

Sri B. Mayur Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for the

appellant/corporation, has argued before this court that the

learned Single Judge has not dealt with the award on merits.

This court has carefully gone through the award. Paragraph

21 of the award passed by the Labour Court is reproduced as

under:-

"21. Two charges have been framed against the petitioner. The 1st charge is that he failed to follow the rule "issue and start". The 2nd charge is that he re-issued invalid tickets, which were already accounted for at stage No.1 to the passengers under charge No.2. If Charge No.2 is proved automatically the 1st charge stands proved. As earlier stated this court can definitely re-appreciate the findings of the enquiry officer on the basis of the evidence adduced. The contention of the petitioner's counsel is that the statement of the petitioner was wrongly recorded by the TTI. A perusal of the reply given by him to the show cause notice clearly indicate that the petitioner expressed his intention in regard to the possession of the tickets in the hands of passengers under charge no.2. The petitioner in the first instance itself in the written statement submitted to the charge sheet allegations, categorically stated that the passengers under Charge no.2 boarded the bus at Bhadrachalam and obtained tickets worth of Rs.35-50 ps. (30+5+50ps.) deno., and they could not produce the tickets at the time of checking by the TTIs, except the tickets worth of Rs.30/- deno. In the written statement itself he stated that the passengers checked their pockets for the remaining tickets, but as they could not produce to escape from the penalty, they have stated that they boarded the bus at stage No.9/10, Perusal of these tickets show that these tickets are valid from Stage No.1 to stage Nos 22/23. The check took place at stage No.9/10. These tickets are valid till the stage No.22/23. Passengers are in possession of valid tickets. The contention of the petitioner is that these passengers boarded the bus at Bhadrachalam. But the contention of the respondent is that these passengers boarded the bus at Konaigudem. The conductor stated that these passengers boarded the bus at Bhadrachalam and he accounted these tickets in the SR. A perusal of the ticket numbers shows that these tickets were accounted for in that S.R at Bhadrachalam itself. These tickets contained punch marks at 0.1 on "from" side and 23 on "to" side. Of course one ticket contained punch marks on 0.9 on "from" side. Taking advantage of it the respondent contends that the petitioner re- issued these tickets. But in the written statement itself the petitioner stated that he endorsed wrong punching on the tickets.

Perusal of the tickets also shows that he wrote the word W.P on one ticket. Hence it shows that at the boarding place itself at stage no.1 the petitioner instead of punching at 0.1 punched it at 0.9 on

"from" side and again he punched on 0.1 and wrote the word W.P. The remaining tickets did not contain punch marks on 0.9 on "from" side. If conductor re-issued these tickets at stage No.9 to the passengers under charge No.2 the tickets should have contained punch marks on 0.9. But these two tickets did not contain punch marks on 0.9. Hence it shows that the passengers under charge No.2 did not board the bus at stage no.9. But they boarded the bus at stage No.1. But they were unable to produce at the time of checking the remaining tickets worth of Rs.5-50 ps., deno. It has been wrongly recorded by the enquiry officer to the effect that the conductor confessed that he re-issued these tickets to the passengers who boarded the bus at Konaigudem. A perusal of the statement made by the petitioner at the time of domestic enquiry he did not state that he re-issued tickets to the passengers under charge No.2. But it was written by the enquiry officer that the conductor stated to the effect that three passengers cut short their journey at stage No.9/10 and gave these tickets to the passengers who boarded at stage No.9. Hence this statement does not mean that the petitioner re-issued these tickets to these passengers. The load in the bus is 120 admittedly. Hence under these circumstances it may not be possible for the petitioner to verify whether three passengers cut short their journey and transferred these tickets to the three passengers at stage No.9, who boarded at that place. It may not be possible for the petitioner to identify each and every passenger when the load is 120 passengers. Apart from it if making the petitioner wanted to re-issue these tickets, he would have handed over all the tickets to the passengers under Charge no.2 instead of Rs.30/- only. If he handed over all these tickets of Rs.35-50 ps., to the passengers under charge No.2, the TTIS would not have found fault with the petitioner. Hence it cannot be said that the petitioner respondents-issued these tickets. Passengers under charge No.2 are having valid tickets in their possession, but to escape from penalty they might have wrongly stated to the TTIs that they boarded the bus at stage No9. The petitioner in the explanation to the charge memo itself stated that these passengers boarded the bus at stage No.1 itself. Perusal of the S.R shows that all these tickets were accounted for. Perusal of the tickets shows that two tickets did not contain punch marks on 0.9 on "from" side. Only one ticket contained punch marks on 0.9 on "from" side. But this ticket contained endorsement W.P (wrong punching). Hence it shows that the conductor made an endorsement about the wrong punch on it and accounted these tickets in the S.R. Therefore, I hold that the findings of the enquiry officer are not based on proper appreciation. On re-appreciation of the evidence adduced, it is clear that the petitioner did not re-issue

these tickets, but the passengers cheated the petitioner and TTIS by making wrong statement to escape from the penalty. Therefore, I hold that the charges leveled against the petitioner have not been proved. This point is therefore found in favour of the petitioner and against the respondent."

The aforesaid findings of fact arrived at by the Labour Court

makes it very clear that the charges were not proved against the

respondent No.1/employee in question and therefore, in those

circumstances, the Labour Court has allowed the petition preferred

by the respondent No.1/employee under Section 2-A(2) of the Act

and the learned Single Judge, after scanning the award, has

dismissed the writ petition.

In the considered opinion of this court, this court does not

find any reason to interfere with the order passed by the learned

Single Judge as well as the award passed by the Labour Court.

The writ appeal is dismissed.

Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand