THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE PULLA KARTHIK WRIT PETITION No.20995 OF 2005

O R D E R:

This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking the following relief:

“...to call for the records pertaining to I.D.No.131/2003 on the file of Industrial Tribunal cum Labour Court-III, Hyderabad and quash the award Dt.27.4.2005 by issuing appropriate writ order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of certiorari and pass such other order or orders ....”

2. The facts of the case are as follows:

Respondent No.1 was appointed as a Conductor in the petitioner-Corporation in the year 1989. While performing his duties on 02.03.2003, a check was conducted, during which, it was found that respondent No.1 failed to collect the fare and also failed to issue tickets to five passengers. Consequently, three charges were framed against respondent No.1, for which, he submitted his explanation. Thereafter, a domestic enquiry was conducted and as the charges levelled against respondent No.1 were proved therein, petitioner No.2 removed respondent No.1 from service by an order dated 06.08.2003. Challenging the same, the petitioner filed I.D.No.131 of 2003 before respondent No.2/Labour Court-III, which was allowed, vide Award dated 27.04.2005, setting aside the removal order, dated 06.08.2003, and directed reinstatement of respondent No.1 into service with continuity of service but without back wages and attendant benefits. Aggrieved by the said Award, the petitioner Corporation filed the present Writ Petition.

3. Heard Sri R.Anurag, learned Standing Counsel for Telangana Road Transport Corporation, appearing for the petitioners and Sri S.M.Subhan, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.1.

4. Learned Standing Counsel for the petitioners contends that the Labour Court failed to appreciate that there were only nine passengers in the bus and respondent No.1 had allowed five passengers to travel in the bus from Manyamkonda Devasthanam Hills till the place of check i.e., Ex-stages 7 to 7/5, without tickets, which indicates the gross negligence by respondent No.1 towards his duties. Further, the Labour Court failed to appreciate that the passengers in question really been in a drunken condition, refusing to tender the requisite fare; respondent No.1 ought to have stopped the bus and requested the passengers to get down from the bus. It is further contended that the Labour Court had exceeded its jurisdiction in re-appreciating the evidence to hold the charges levelled against respondent No.1 as proved to be a mistake and not amounting to misconduct. As such, the Labour Court, while granting reinstatement erred in granting continuity of service. Therefore, learned Standing Counsel for the petitioners prays this Court to set aside the impugned Award, dated

27.04.2005, passed in I.D.No.131 of 2003.

5. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent No.1 submits that the Labour Court, after considering the spot explanation of respondent No.1 (marked as Ex.M3-A), rightly concluded that the incident occurred under compelling circumstances. In his explanation, respondent No.1 clearly stated that the passengers were in a drunken condition and questioned as to why they have to pay Rs.5/- each and created a commotion, got into an altercation and assaulted him. In response, at the instance of respondent No.1, the driver was able to stop the bus only at Kamaan, as there was no road clearance. However, in the meantime, the checking officials boarded the bus and conducted the inspection without hearing the version of respondent No.1. The same plea, as stated in the spot explanation, was also taken by respondent No.1 in his explanation to the charge memo and the charge sheet. It is further submitted that respondent No.1 did not commit any mistake and is not guilty of any misappropriation. As such, the Labour Court rightly held that the conclusion regarding the charges levelled against respondent No.1 being proven was a mistake only, not amou