The denial of back wages as a measure of punishment is justified only in cases where the misconduct is serious and the denial is correlated to the gravity of the misconduct.

( 1 ) THE Award of the Labour court,visakhapatnam in I. D. No. 143/86, dated: 25-2-1987 to the extent of denying the back wages is assailed in this Writ petition.

( 2 ) THE petitioner was appointed as conductor in the A. P. S. R. T. C. in the year 1979. He was working under the Depot manager, Anakapalli Depot in Visakhapatnam district. A charge sheet was issued to the petitioner alleging that the petitioner failed to remit the change due amounts noted in the S. R. along with Bus cash in cash counter on different dates and that the said omissions constituted misconduct under regulation 28 of A. P. S. R. T. C. Conduct regulations. An enquiry was conducted and finally the petitioner was removed by an order dated: 5-9-1984. Thereafter the petitioner raised an industrial dispute which was referred by the Government of Andhra Pradesh in G. O. Rtno. 178, dated: 20-1-1986. The reference is as follows:"whether the termination of the services of Sri D. U. V. N. V. Raju, Ex-Conductor by the Depot Manager, Andhra Pradesh state Road Transport Corporation. Gazuwaka Depot, Visakhapatnam is justified. If not to what relief the workman is entitled ?"with regard to the Charge No. 1, the petitioner was found guilty. As far as the 2nd charge is concerned, the same was held to be not proved. In respect of the 3rd charge, itisheld partly proved. The Labour Court after considering the relevant material held that the termination of the services of the petitioner was not justified. Accordingly,the Award was passed on 25-2-1987, to the effect that the petitioner is entitled to be reinstated into service with continuity of service but with stoppage of one increment without cumulative effect and withholding the back wages. The said Award in so far as refusal of back wages is concerned is assailed before this court.

( 3 ) THE learned counsel for the petitioner submits that when once the Labour Court finds that on the basis of the proved charges which were partially proved, the punishment of removal was unjustified, but however while awarding the relief, the Labour Court erred in denying the back wages. It is his case that when a minor punishment of deferment of one increment without cumulative eftect is imposed, the Labour court has knowledge that the charges as framed and to the extent they are proved are trivial. He further submits that the Labour court having found that the punishment of stoppageofoneincrementwithout cumulative eftect would meet the ends of justice, erred in denying the back wages. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the Corporation submits mat the back wages were denied as a measure of punishment apart from imposing punishment of deferment of increments and the same is justified. He submits that under the said circumstances, the Award of the labour Court cannot be interfered with by this Cour tunder Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

( 4 ) I have considered the rival contentions of the learned counsel Itisnot in dispute that out of three charges, one charge was not proved and the two charges were partly proved. Basing on the findings on the charges the Tribunal came to the conclusion that minor punishment would have met the ends of justice and therefore, the punishment was set aside. While granting relief of reinstatement, the Labour Court while imposing punishment of stoppage of one increment without cumulative effect, also with-held the back wages as a measure of punishment. The petitioner was out of service for about four years and as found by the labour Court, the charges did not warrant the capital punishment of removal from service. Under Section 11 (A)of theindustrial disputes Act, the Labour Courtis empowered to reappraise the evidence and function itself as an appellate authority over the orderspassed by the Management in respect of the dismissals or terminations. It is now settled proposition mat when such a power is not exercised properly by the Labour court or if it is exercised in excess of