( 1 ) THE petitioner, who worked previously in the service of the AP. State Road transport Corporation, was removed from service on grounds of misconduct. The appellate authority confirmed the punishment. The Labour Court, Anantapur to which the matter was referred by G. O. Rt. No. 190 Labour, Employment, Nutrition and Technical education (Lab. I) Department, dated 1-2-1985, also declined to interfere with the order of punishment He, therefore, filed the present Writ Petition seeking a writ of Certiorari, to call for the records relating to the award passed by the Labour Court, Anantapur in i. D. No. 72 of 1986 dated 12-5-1986 and quash the same, with a consequential direction to the Depot Manager, APSRTC. , Atmakur to reinstate him in service with all consequential benefits.

( 2 ) ON 9-1-1983, the petitioner was on duty as Conductor in respect of the APSRTC vehicle APZ 2217 on the route Atmakur to Yerramam village. There were 156 passengers in the vehicle; it was over-crowded and many passengers were sitting on the top of the vehicle. After the vehicle left Atmakur and before it reached the third stage, two Travelling Ticket Inspectors inspected it and found 156 passengers, and the petitioner-herein issued tickets only to 85 passengers. The Two Travelling Ticket inspectors collected the fares from the rest of the 71 passengers and they also recorded the statements of the passengers, who categorically asserted that the petitioner did not collect the fare from them and did not issue tickets by the time of the check. In his statement given immediately after the vehicle was checked, the petitioner stated that he was pressurised by the passengers to proceed as it was "getting dark". There was delay in issuing the tickets, he admitted. In his subsequent explanation to the charge-memo, a different version was set-out by him to the effect that the driver stopped the vehicle on the outskirts of the village to enable him to issue tickets before the next stage was reached, but as there were four double bullock carts carrying hay-ricks which had to be allowed to proceed and, therefore, the driver had to cover a further distance of two kilometres in order to make room to the double bullock carts, and in the meanwhile the vehicle was subjected to check. The Enquiry Officer found that the evidence available fully substantiated the charge, and based upon the report of the enquiry officer the punishing authority awarded the punishment of removal which was confirmed on appeal by the appellate authority. Both the authorities took into consideration the fact that for the first time, belatedly after the charge-sheet was issued, the petitioner came but with a different version about the pressure brought by the bullock cart drivers when the vehicle was stopped on the outskirts of the village.

( 3 ) THE Labour Court, while holding that the charges were proved, also adverted to the previous punishments imposed upon the petitioner, and after apprising the petitioner of the previous punishments, came to the conclusion that the punishment of removal was perfectly justified.

( 4 ) THE only contention urged before me by the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that, the punishment of removal imposed on the petitioner was, in the circumstances of the case, utterly disproportionate to the gravity of the charges held proved. In opposition to this, the learned Standing Counsel for the APSRTC maintains that, as the petitioner was negligent in the discharge of his duties, the punishment of removal was perfectly justified.

( 5 ) UNDER Section 11-A of the Industrial Disputes Act, it is incumbent on the part of the Industrial Court to go into the question of the quantum of punishment imposed. If the punishment awarded was disproportionate to the charges held proved, the Industrial court, would, in exercise of its discretion, alter the punishment. In the present case, the industrial Court held the punishment of removal is justified, in the circumstanc