The Depot Manager, vs A.N.Srinivasa Sagar,
2021 Latest Caselaw 3729 Tel

  THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA
                                   AND
        THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A.RAJASHEKER REDDY



                WRIT APPEAL No.633 OF 2019


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


     The present writ appeal is arising out of the order

dated 29.11.2018 passed by the learned Single Judge in

W.P.No.10123 of 2004.

     The undisputed facts of the case reveal that the

respondent No.1 was involved in a cash and ticket

irregularity. A charge memo was issued on 25.09.1996

and thereafter, an enquiry took place in the matter. As

per the imputation of misconduct, while performing the

duties on 25.09.1996, a surprise check was carried out

and it was noticed that the respondent No.1 has taken

money from the passengers, however has not issued the

tickets. An order of removal was passed on 30.01.1997

and thereafter, the respondent No.1 has approached the

Labour Court under Section 2A(2) of the Industrial

Disputes Act. The Labour Court has passed an award

dated 22.12.2003 directing reinstatement of the

respondent No.1 into service within one month from the

date of publication of the award and also directed that he

shall be paid back wages to an extent of 25% within the

same period, failing which he shall be entitled for interest

at the rate of 12% per annum thereafter till realisation

and that he shall be entitled for continuity of service but

without attendant benefits. The only reasoning assigned

by the Labour Court for directing reinstatement along

with back wages is that the respondent No.1 was

appointed on 27.03.1996 and the surprise check took

place on 25.09.1996 and as he was not having sufficient

experience as a Conductor, he has not issued the tickets.

In the considered opinion of this Court, the Labour

Court was having powers under Section 11A of the

Industrial Disputes Act to modify the punishment. But,

this Court fails to understand as to why back wages have

been granted to a person who was involved in cash and

ticket irregularities. The appellant, being aggrieved by

the award, has preferred a writ petition and the learned

Single Judge has dismissed the writ petition upholding

the award only on the ground that no illegality or

irregularity was pointed out in the matter.

Learned counsel for the appellant has vehemently

argued before this Court that their grievance is only to

the extent of back wages have been granted, as it will

amount to granting a premium to an employee, who was

involved in cash and ticket irregularities

(misappropriation).

This Court, after careful consideration of the award

passed by the Labour Court and also keeping in view the

proved misconduct, is of the opinion that the respondent

No.1 is certainly not at all entitled to back wages.

Therefore, to that extent, the order passed by the learned

Single Judge and the award passed by the Labour Court

is modified.

The writ appeal is accordingly partly allowed. The

miscellaneous applications pending in this appeal, if any,

shall stand closed. There shall be no order as to costs.

___________________________ SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA, CJ

___________________________ A.RAJASHEKER REDDY, J 24.11.2021 vs