MOHAMMED SARDAR ALI KHAN, J.

( 1 ) THIS writ appeal is directed against the judgment dated 16-12-1986 in Writ petition No. 3742 of 1985.

( 2 ) THE appellant is a conductor working in the A. P. State Road Transport corporation (for short the Corporation ). He was appointed in 1975. On 25-7-1980, while he was conducting the bus AAZ 2202 from Khammam to nelakondapalli, a surprise check was carried out and it was found that the appellant herein had not issued tickets between stages 7 and 8 to 19 passengers, who were travelling ticketiess in the bus. Charges were framed and a disciplinary enquiry was held with respect to the irregularities mentioned above. In the enquiry, charges were held proved and a second show cause notice was issued on 19-12-1980 proposing removal from service. The appellant offered his explanation, which was considered to be inadequate and an order of removal was passed on 12-1-1981. The appellant filed an appeal to the Divisional manager, who is the appellate authority. The appellate authority, while holding that the conductor had indeed allowed 19 passengers to travel without tickets, took note of the fact that he was in the process of completing ticket issues and that while he was going through this exercise, someone among the passengers gave the bell and the bus started. In that view of the matter, the appellate authority held as follows:"purely on humanitarian ground and on the ground that he was in the act of issuing tickets at the time of check, as stated by the checking officials in the enquiry, and only half stage is passed, I am inclined to take a lenient view in the case with a hope that he will prove his bona fides. I therefore hereby order that Sri K. Dayanand, E. 54569 Ex. conductor of kmm depot be appointed as a fresh conductor, if he applies for and posted to Kothagudem depot. "the appellant accepted the decision of the appellate authority without any murmur. He applied for a fresh appointment as a conductor and was appointed as such on 17-7-1981.

( 3 ) THE National Mazdoor Union, however, took up the cause of the appellant and raised a dispute, on the basis of which the matter was referred to the Labour court by the Government under Section 10 (l) (c) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the Act )- The reference has been made in the following manner:"whether the demand of APSRTC National Mazdoor Union, Khammam- register No. 3108 for granting continuity of service to Sri K. Dayanand, conductor from 9-1-1981 to 17-7-1981 is justified? If so, to what relief the workman is entitled?"

( 4 ) WHEN the matter was taken up by the Labour Court, the Corporation filed a number of documents showing the punishments awarded to the appellant earlier. Ex. M-18 was marked on behalf of the Corporation and it was contended that the case of the appellant does not deserve any consideration. The Labour court refused to look into the past record on the ground that it was not filed before the first authority and it was produced for the first time before the Labour court. It was also noted by the Labour Court that there was heavy rush in the bus at the time of surprise check, that the appellant was in the process of issuing tickets and that this fact was accepted by the first authority itself. In the circumstances, the Labour Court observed that the denial of continuity of service to the appellant was not justified. This is the background of the case, in which the legal issues arising for consideration in this writ appeal will have to be viewed.

( 5 ) SRI G. Ramachandra Rao, learned counsel appearing for the appellant, has submitted that the reference made at the behest of the Union was an industrial dispute as defined under Section 2 (k) of the Act. Under the said section, industrial dispute has been defined in the following manner: " (k) "industrial dispute" means any dispute or difference between employers and employees or between employers and workmen, or between workmen and workm

Click Here to Read the rest of this document