Telangana State Road Transport ... vs D.Jagan
2022 Latest Caselaw 2876 Tel

 THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA
                                           AND
           THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE B. VIJAYSEN REDDY

                       WRIT APPEAL No.430 of 2019

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

        The present writ appeal is arising out of the order dated

25.10.2018          passed        by     the      learned       Single   Judge    in

W.P.No.24778 of 2002.

        The undisputed facts of the case reveal that the

respondent No.1/employee was serving as a Conductor in the

services of the appellants/Corporation and a charge sheet was

issued in respect of cash and ticket irregularities. The charges

reflect that on 19.05.1998 while the bus was moving on route

Ibrahimpatnam-Mall, a surprise check took place and four lady

passengers were found travelling without tickets. There were

other charges also. Finally, after conducting an enquiry, an

order of removal was passed on 21.11.1998 against which an

appeal and a review petition were preferred by the respondent

No.1/employee and they were also rejected on 09.03.1999 and

16.07.1999 respectively. The respondent No.1/employee again

preferred a petition under Section 2-A(2) of the Industrial

Disputes Act, 1947 (for short "the Act") and the Labour Court,

after appreciating the evidence on record, has directed

reinstatement of the respondent No.1/employee with continuity

of service, 75% of back wages and attendant benefits. The

Labour Court has also appreciated the evidence on record and

paragraph 9 of the award passed by the Labour Court is

reproduced as under:-

"9. The petitioner is attributed in respect of Charge no.2 that he failed to collect fare amount from a batch of a lady passengers and not issued tickets to them. In the enquiry one of the lady passengers by name Smt.Kavitha Bharatamma has been examined and her statement has been recorded. She spoke that on the day of check, herself and her 3 sisters boarded the bus at Gungal Village, stage no.10 to go to Mall village, stage no.13. Then one of her sisters by name Smt.Padamamma was under the influence of Shivam and herself and two other sisters were handling and controlling her on account of which, they could not pay the fare to the conductor for tickets. This witness spoke that there was no fault on the part of the petitioner and she and her sisters could not tender the fare amount to the conductor. This witness is not cross-examined by the TTI of the conductor. Her evidence is remained as unchallenged. Her evidence is in support of the plea of the conductor. Another defence witness by name P.Satyam, S/o.Ramachandram has been examined as a defence witness in support of the plea of the petitioner. He spoke that 4 lady passengers were found as ticketless passengers at the time of check and the checking officials have collected the fare amount from the passengers besides imposing penalty of Rs.10/- each totalling to Rs.40/-. The checking officials have collected EFT from each passengers totalling to Rs.40/-. This witness is also not cross-examined either by TTIs or by the conductor and his testimony is remained as unchallenged. The conductor's statement was recorded. He requested the enquiry

officer to treat his explanation to the charge sheet as his deposition during the enquiry. Ex.M10 is the explanation to the charge sheet. As per Ex.M10, on the day of check, 4 lady passengers have boarded the bus at stage no.10, Gungal Village. As soon as they boarded the bus, one of the lady passenger were influenced under shivam and the remaining three passengers were controlling her and at that time he could not collect the fare amount from them. Hence while check took place and found the said 4 lady passengers as ticketless passengers and issued a charge memo against him. The lady passengers spoke that her co-sister was under the influence of shivam and in that connection they could not tender the fare amount to the conductor for tickets. The checking officials have checked the bus at stage no.12 and Smt.Padmamma was not influenced under shivam at that time. If the passengers was under the influence of shivam, the checking officials should have noticed it. There was no such incident in the bus at the time of check and the plea of the petitioner is not believed. The enquiry officer has observed that checking officials have imposed penalty of Rs.10/- to each ticketless passengers and collected an amount of Rs.40/- from them towards EFT. The Enquiry officer believed the version of the lady passenger that one of the lady passenger was under the influence of shivam and the delayed the payment of fare amount and could not issue them tickets in time ie worth for consideration to some extent. However, he found fault against the conductor for allowing the said passengers to travel without tickets for two fare stages from no.10 to 12 in the district service and the distance is 10 K.M. between two fare stages, i.e. stage no.10 and 12. Further he observed that he should have detained the bus till the collection of fare amount and issue tickets but the conductor did not do it and found fault against the conductor.

The petitioner did not stop the bus till the collection of the fare amount from the passengers and it is negligence on the part of the conductor. Anyhow, it is not attributed against the

conductor that he collected fare amount and not issued tickets to them. In the circumstances, it is not such a grave misconduct. The conductor ought not to have allow the bus to proceed whom he noticed that there was a delay in collection of fare amount from 4 lady passengers. But, the conductor did not do it and it is a negligence on his part and at the same time this misconduct is not such a grave misconduct as it is not caused loss of revenue to the corporation. Further the lady passengers was imposed penalty and collected EFT from them to a tune of Rs.40/-. It is clearly go to show that there was a fault on the part of 4 lady passengers and the conductor is not totally responsible for not collecting the fare amount from 4 lady passengers. This court accepted the findings of the enquiry officer to some extent."

The evidence on record reveals that the ladies who were in

the bus, in fact, did not handover money to the Conductor, as

one of them was under the influence of Shivam as informed to

this Court by the learned counsel appearing for the parties. The

Labour Court, as the conductor was not at fault, has held that

at the most there was some negligence on the part of the

respondent No.1/employee in not collecting the fare and has

interfered with the quantum of punishment. The learned Single

Judge has dismissed the writ petition preferred by the

appellants/Corporation.

This Court has carefully gone through the award passed

by the Labour Court as well as the order passed by the learned

Single Judge. The Labour Court was certainly having powers

under the Act to interfere with the quantum of punishment

keeping in view the peculiar facts and circumstances of the

case. This Court also does not find any reason to interfere with

the award passed by the Labour Court as well as the order

passed by the learned Single Judge.

Resultantly, the writ appeal stands dismissed.

Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand

closed. There shall be no order as to costs.

________________________ SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA, CJ

_______________________ B. VIJAYSEN REDDY, J

17.06.2022 JSU