HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA WRIT PETITION No. 2733 OF 2007

O R D E R :

Challenging the Award dated 07.11.2005 in I.D.No.

61 of 2004 on the file of the Labour Court-I, Hyderabad, in so far as denying back wages is concerned, petitioner – Conductor in the State-owned Corporation moved this Court.

2. The case of petitioner is that on the allegation of involving in cash and ticket irregularities while conducting bus service on 10.11.2000, the 2^nd respondent - Depot Manager suspended him from service on 18.11.2000. He was charged for having cash in excess of Rs. 1.75 ps. and that SR was not filled up; thereafter, was removed from service vide order dated 29.03.2001. Questioning the said order, petitioner approached the Labour Court-I and raised the mentioned dispute contending that the excess money belongs to the passengers who might have forgotten to take their due amounts endorsed on the reverse of tickets or might have been result of non- availability of exact change due to be returned to the passengers like 0.25 to 0.10 ps., etcetera and SR was not closed due to the disturbance created by one of the passengers travelling in the bus, hence, the very initiation of disciplinary action is uncalled for. The labour court held the domestic enquiry conducted in the instant case as valid and passed the Award impugned. While granting the relief, the labour court denied back wages for no valid reasons.

3. According to learned counsel for petitioner Sri V. Narasimha Goud, there exists a reasonable cause within the meaning of Regulation 28(xxiv) of the APSRTC Employees (Conduct) Regulations, 1963, as such, it does not amount to misconduct. Apart from that, the labour court failed to see that the 1^st respondent issued Circular No. 32/91, dated 24.09.1991 in respect of Job Security of Conductors stating that disciplinary action should not be initiated against the conductors in case, the bus cash found excess amounting to 2% of ticket sale amount or Rs.10/- whichever is less. Further, the allegation attributed against petitioner does not fit within the meaning of Regulations 8 and 9 of the 1967 Regulations in order to impose major punishment of removal, as such, denial of back wages is against the principles of natural justice, emphasizes the learned counsel.

4. Though the Writ Petition was admitted on 15.02.2007, no counter is forthcoming so far. Since the Writ Petition is of 2007, this Court deems it not proper to keep the same pending indefinitely.

5. Heard Sri M. Rammohan Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for the Corporation.

6. The accusation made against petitioner is that he failed to close the SR from starting to ending and bus cash when checked was found excess by Rs.1.75 ps. The Enquiry Officer, not satisfied with the explanation offered by the petitioner that one of the passengers argued with him for return of change, therefore, he got disturbed and forgot to close the SR, removed petitioner from service. The Enquiry Officer further observed that it is the primary duty of petitioner to close the SR within one fare stage of issue of ticket if not at least on a alternative stage in the city services and fortgetfulness of the petitioner is not proper while he was discharging duties. The Labour Court, a perusal of the Award shows, held that if the explanation given by petitioner is visualised in a proper perspective, cash found with the conductor is a huge amount of Rs.922/- which means that bus must have been heavily loaded with sufficient number of passengers; if the explanation given by petitioner is taken into consideration, that a galata took place with some passengers for non-issuance of proper change, the amount found in excess would be only on account of non- availability of proper change of small denomination of coins with petitioner; the Enquiry Officer failed to visualise the situation on par with the explanation offered by petitioner. While holding that penalty imposed by the Corporation is not commensurate with the gravi