COMMON ORDER:

Both Writ Petitions have been filed seeking to quash the Award dated 27.12.2006 in ID No.196 of 2005, passed by the Labour Court-I, Hyderabad.

Since the issue involved in both the Writ Petitions is identical, this Court is inclined to dispose of the same by way of a Common Order.

Heard Sri Kowturu Pavan Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner in W.P.No.12626 of 2008 and learned counsel for respondent No.1 in W.P.No.13216 of 2008.

Sri R. Anurag, learned Standing counsel for TGSRTC/ petitioner in W.P.No.13216 of 2008, and for respondent No.3 in W.P.No.12626 of 2008. Perused the record.

For the sake of convenience, the facts stated in W.P.No. 12626 of 2008 are discussed as follows:

(a) Petitioner was initially appointed as Conductor on a daily wage basis on 13.09.1996 and thereafter, his services were regularized with effect from 01.08.1997. While the petitioner was operating bus No.5800 on 28.05.2005, officials from the checking team at stage No.8, i.e. Nanal Nagar conducted a check at about 16.45 hrs. During the check, they found cash and ticket irregularities. On the same day, a charge memo was served on the petitioner with the following charges:

(a) For having collected requisite fare of Rs.4/- from a passenger and failed to issue ticket who boarded your bus at Tolichowki and alighting at Nanal nagar ex-stages 9 to 8 for which obtained TPT No.820/377938 each 1 of Rs.4/- denomination, which constitutes misconduct under Reg.28(vi-a) of APSRTC Employees (Conduct) Reg. 1963".

(b) For having refused to accept the charge memo at the time of check and refusing to sign on the passenger statement (MTD 267) obtained by TTIs and thrown the ticket tray and the cash bag on the floor of the bus left from the bus for some time, which constitutes misconduct under Reg. 28(viii) of APSRTC employees (Conduct) Reg.1963".

(b) The petitioner had submitted his explanation denying the charges. Thereafter, an enquiry was ordered appointing Assistant Manager (enquiries), Charminar Division, as Enquiry Officer. A show cause notice dated 03.09.2005 was issued to the petitioner, to which he replied that he had not committed any mistake in issuing the tickets. But without appreciating the ground realities and the petitioner’s explanation, the 3rd respondent issued an order of removal on 29.08.2005. In response to the said order, the petitioner filed an Industrial Disputes ID. No.196 of 2005 before the Labour Court-1, Hyderabad.

(c) The Labour court, after adjudication, categorically held that “the circumstances explained by the petitioner are genuine and also held that bus cash is also not verified to find out whether the petitioner carried more than the required cash to be available in his cash bag.”

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Labour court, having recorded all the findings in the petitioner’s favour, ought to have allowed his application in toto, but the learned Labour Court, though granted reinstatement, continuity of service and other attendant benefits, denied back wages, which is not justifiable. Accordingly, prayed to allow the Writ Petition.

On the other hand, learned Standing Counsel for TGSRTC by filing W.P.No.13216 of 20078 submits that while the petitioner was conducting Bus No.5800 on route Toli-chowki to Charminar on 28.05.2005 at about 16.45 hours at stage No.8, i.e. at Nanal Nagar, the checking officials exercised a check and detected that the 1st respondent (petitioner in W.P.No.12626 of 2008) failed to issue tickets to a passenger despite collecting the requisite fare of Rs.4/- from the passenger. The checking officials confronted the ticketless passenger with the 1st respondent and obtained his statement, and the 1st respondent refused to sign the passenger’s statement. As such, the service driver’s signature was obtained, and his statement was recorded on the spot.

Learned Standing Counsel further submits that the checking officials prepared a charge memo bearing No. 582012 on the spot detailin