[Cites 2, Cited by 0]
Telangana High Court
B. Somaiah, E. 342417, Conductor, ... vs The Depot Manager, Apsrtc, Warangal ... on 26 March, 2026
Author: Juvvadi Sridevi
Bench: Juvvadi Sridevi
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT
HYDERABAD
THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE JUVVADI SRIDEVI
WRIT PETITION No.13786 of 2008
DATED: 26th MARCH, 2026
Between:
B.Somaiah ...Petitioner
AND
The Depot Manager, APSRTC,
Hanamkonda Depot, Warangal District ...Respondent
O R D E R:
The petitioner has filed this Writ Petition, aggrieved by the
Award dated 15.02.2000 passed by the Labour Court, insofar as it
directs the appointment of the petitioner as a fresh recruit and
imposes the penalty of stoppage of one increment with cumulative
effect.
02. Heard Sri P.Venkateshwar Rao, learned counsel for the
petitioner and Sri Chandra Sekhar.N, learned Standing Counsel for
Telangana State Road Transport Corporation, appearing for
respondent and perused the record.
03. The petitioner joined the service of RTC as a Conductor
in the year 1990, and his services were regularized in the year
1993. He was removed from service by order dated 16.06.1994 on
the ground that he had issued seven tickets bearing
Nos.080/894980 to 986 of Rs.2.75 denomination to seven individual
passengers who boarded the bus at Warangal Stage No.1, with a
slight invisible punch in 'UP', and failed to account for these issues
in S.R. No. A0/3578748, dated 18.11.1993, against the Stage No.3.
He also failed to show the ticket issues as '7' and did not clearly
write '987' from Warangal to Fatima Nagar, Stage Nos.1 to 15. It
was alleged that he intentionally wrote the due amounts on the
reverse of some of those tickets so as to conveniently take back
and re-issue the same, thereby defrauding the legitimate revenue of
the Corporation. The petitioner further failed to observe the T.I.C.
point at Mission Hospital and failed to collect fare and issue tickets
to four passengers who boarded the bus at Mission Hospital bound
for Laxmi Talkies (Ex-Stage 9/7 to 3) and were found travelling
without tickets at Ashoka Talkies, Stage No.9/7. After conducting
an inquiry, the petitioner was removed from service. The appeal
and revision preferred by him were also rejected. Aggrieved
thereby, he approached the Labour Court. Upon consideration of
the matter, the Labour Court ordered reinstatement of the petitioner;
however, he was directed to be treated as a "fresh recruit," and one
increment was stopped with cumulative effect after reinstatement.
Aggrieved by the denial of continuity of service with all
consequential benefits and back wages, the petitioner has
approached this Court.
04. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that during
the course of the inquiry, the petitioner was not supplied with the
based and relevant documents of both the charge sheets thus the
respondent-corporation has violated the regulations 12 of the
Employees CCA Regulations. It is further contended that the
checking officials failed to follow the instructions of the Corporation
issued in MTD-267, which require that the statement shall be
attested by the service driver and two independent witnesses, and
that the TTIs shall record the correct postal addresses of the alleged
passengers. However, only with a view to frame charges against
the petitioner, the said procedure was not followed. It is also
contended that in the absence of a list of witnesses, the charge
sheet itself is illegal. The petitioner further submits that the TTIs
failed to collect material evidence and to make proper
endorsements in the official records, such as the Statistical Return
Check Report (MTD 43/R), and intentionally avoided eliciting the
truth. The action of the respondent in not properly examining the
evidence on record and in attributing guilt to the petitioner is stated
to be contrary to the principles of natural justice and the CCA
Regulations, 1987. It is also contended that the Labour Court,
without appreciating the evidence on record in its proper
perspective, denied continuity of service with all consequential
benefits and back wages while ordering reinstatement. Accordingly,
the petitioner prays that this Court may allow the writ petition by
granting continuity of service with all consequential benefits and
back wages.
05. On the other hand, the learned Standing Counsel
appearing for the RTC contends that the Labour Court, in exercise
of its powers under Section 11-A of the Industrial Disputes Act, set
aside the order of removal and imposed a lesser punishment by
directing reinstatement of the petitioner as a "fresh recruitee." It is
further contended that, having regard to the misconduct proved
against the petitioner, the punishment of removal from service was
just and proper. However, the Labour Court, though erroneously
exercising its jurisdiction in interfering with the punishment, has
taken a lenient view and granted the relief of reinstatement while
rightly denying continuity of service, consequential benefits, and
back wages. Accordingly, it is prayed that the writ petition be
dismissed, as the punishment imposed is proportionate to the
charges proved against the petitioner.
06. Having heard the submissions made by the learned
counsel appearing for both sides and upon perusal of the material
available on record, it is apparent from the findings recorded in the
impugned Award that, though the petitioner was found to have
committed certain irregularities, the same were held to have
occurred due to circumstances beyond his control, as the bus was
carrying 99 passengers, which was far beyond its seating capacity.
The Labour Court further observed that the petitioner had no mala
fide intention to defraud the Corporation. On the basis of such
findings, the Labour Court set aside the order of removal and
directed reinstatement of the petitioner as a "Fresh Recruit". It was
further directed that, after reinstatement, one increment shall be
stopped with cumulative effect as a lesser punishment.
07. It is not in dispute that the charges levelled against the
petitioner were proved in the domestic enquiry. Though the
petitioner contended that there was violation of the principles of
natural justice and non-compliance with the procedural instructions
of the Corporation, the Labour Court, upon appreciation of the entire
evidence on record, did not find that the enquiry was vitiated.
However, taking into consideration the surrounding circumstances,
particularly the fact that the bus was carrying 99 passengers, which
was beyond its seating capacity, and that there was no mala fide
intention on the part of the petitioner to defraud the Corporation, the
Labour Court exercised its discretion under Section 11-A of the
Industrial Disputes Act and interfered with the punishment of
removal.
08. It is well settled that under Section 11-A of the Industrial
Disputes Act, the Labour Court is empowered to reappraise the
evidence and modify the punishment if it finds the same to be
disproportionate to the misconduct proved. In the present case,
while holding that certain irregularities were committed, the Labour
Court, taking a lenient view, set aside the order of removal and
directed reinstatement of the petitioner as a "Fresh Recruit", while
imposing the penalty of stoppage of one increment with cumulative
effect. At the same time, the Labour Court denied continuity of
service and back wages. This Court, in exercise of its jurisdiction
under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, does not sit as an
appellate authority over the findings of the Labour Court. Unless the
Award suffers from perversity, patent illegality, or jurisdictional error,
interference by this Court is not warranted.
09. It is to be noted that the petitioner has not impleaded the
Labour Court, which passed the impugned Award, as a respondent
in the present Writ Petition. The petitioner has neither assigned any
reason for such non-impleadment nor offered any explanation for
not making the Labour Court a party to the proceedings.
10. Be that as it may, in the present case, the petitioner has
failed to demonstrate that the findings recorded by the Labour Court
are perverse, arbitrary, or contrary to law. On the contrary, the
Labour Court has shown considerable leniency in granting the relief
of reinstatement despite the misconduct proved against the
petitioner. In such circumstances, the denial of continuity of service
and consequential benefits cannot be said to be arbitrary or illegal.
The punishment, as modified by the Labour Court, appears to be
proportionate to the charges proved and does not warrant
interference by this Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under the
Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
11. Accordingly, this Writ Petition is dismissed. There shall
be no order as to costs.
As a sequel, pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall
stand closed.
___________________
JUVVADI SRIDEVI, J
Date: 26.03.2026
Ksk/khrm
