E. Galaiah, vs The Honble Labour Courti,
2022 Latest Caselaw 4756 Tel

      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

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

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

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

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

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

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