Telangana High Court
The Depot Manager, Apsrtc, vs Sri B. Yadaiah And Another, on 15 September, 2023
Bench: Nagesh Bheemapaka
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA
WRIT PETITION No. 21165 OF 2009
ORDER:
Aggrieved by the Award dated 28.12.2007 in I.D.
No. 145 of 20052 on the file of Labour Court-I, Hyderabad
whereby petitioner - Corporation was directed to reinstate the 1st
respondent (Ex.Conductor) together with continuity of service and
other attendant benefits, but without back-wages, this Writ
Petition was filed by the Corporation.
2. It is stated that the 1st respondent while was
conducting bus No. 230 on route 72J Charminar to Jaipuri
Colony, on 20.04.2004, at about 15.15 hours, a check was
exercised and it was found that he re-issued ticket of Rs.4/-
denomination to a passenger after collecting fare of Rs.3/- at
boarding point itself i.e. Nagole which was already issued at Stage
No.5. Checking officials confronted the passenger to the 1st
respondent and obtained his statement and witness statement of
co-passengers. Based on the evidence on record and the spot
explanation of 1st respondent, he was issued charge-memo. After
completing formalities, he was removed from service by order
dated 25.06.2004. Appeal and Review preferred thereagainst were
rejected. Hence, Industrial Dispute was raised, wherein the Labour
Court though held that domestic enquiry is valid, on erroneous
and perverse view of the matter, allowed the Petition in part and
directed reinstatement of the 1st respondent into service with
continuity of service but without back-wages.
3. Learned Standing Counsel for Corporation submits
that finding of the Labour Court that overriding of passenger from
stage No.5 as contended by the 1st respondent cannot be ruled
out, is perverse and contrary to record as the passenger in his
statement clearly stated that he boarded the bus at Nagole Stage
No.3 bound to Jaipuri Colony. According to him, examination of
ticketless passenger during the course of enquiry is not necessary
and evidence of checking officials who checked the bus is
sufficient. He submits that as held by the Hon'ble Apex Court in a
catena of judgments, once a domestic Tribunal based on evidence
on record comes to a particular conclusion, normally, it is not
open to the Courts to substitute their subjective opinion and they
shall be slow in re-appreciating the evidence. When no additional
material was produced by the 1st respondent before the Labour
Court to come to a different conclusion than the one arrived at by
the disciplinary authority, it ought not to have given such a
finding, is what the learned Standing Counsel emphasizes.
4. As seen from the record, the charge levelled against
the 1st respondent is that he reissued ticket of Rs.4/-
denomination to a passenger who boarded the bus at Nagole
bound to Jaipuri Colony Ex-stages 3 to 3/1. On verification by the
checking officials, it was found that said ticket was already
accounted at stage No.5, therefore, it was deemed to have been re-
issued by collecting Rs.3/- instead of Rs.4/-. The plea of the 1st
respondent is that the passenger over-rided from stage No.5 and
he did not notice. But the statement of passenger marked as
Ex.M4 is otherwise, it shows that he boarded at Nagole i.e. stage
No.3. If he boarded at stage No.5, as stated by the 1st respondent,
the passenger would have admitted that. In this regard, the
explanation submitted by the 1st respondent shows that passenger
boarded the bus at MXT Colony stage No.6 and he issued a proper
ticket and accounted in SR at stage No.5. He stated that the said
passenger was threatened by the checking officials with dire
consequences and under pressure, he forcibly offered his
statement and attested the same. According to the 1st respondent,
he issued 4 to 5 tickets of Rs.4/- denomination and SR also shows
that he issued six tickets at stage No.5.
Admittedly, passenger was not examined before the
Enquiry Officer though his statement was recorded by the
checking officials on the spot which is fatal to the case of the
Corporation. Learned Standing Counsel submits that examination
of ticket-less passenger in the enquiry is not necessary, however,
in the light of the mala fide attributed by the 1st respondent that
passenger was threatened with imposing heavy penalty, he gave a
false statement that he boarded the bus at Nagole instead of
University Colony, the Corporation ought to have taken care to
rebut the same.
Further, the Labour Court observed that the 1st
respondent joined service in 1979, his date of birth is 01.02.1954
i.e. he served the Corporation for a period of 27 years and was at
fag-end of service. Since overriding cannot be ruled out, the
findings of the Enquiry Officer cannot be sustained and the same
is liable to set aside. In the absence of any evidence, the finding of
the Labour Court cannot be brushed aside. Hence, in the
considered opinion of this Court, the impugned Award cannot be
reviewed in exercise of certiorari jurisdiction. The Writ Petition is
devoid of merit and the same is liable to be dismissed.
5. The Writ Petition is accordingly, dismissed. No
costs.
6. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand
closed.
--------------------------------------
NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA, J
15th September 2023
ksld
