RAMULU V J Vs. LABOUR COURT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal by the appellant-2nd respondent is directed against an order of the learned single Judge whereby and whereunder the writ petition filed by the A.P. State Road Transport Corporation for quashing of the award of the Labour Court, Anantapur dated May 27, 1989 in ID No.2149 of 1988 was allowed.

(2.) The appellant herein was a Conductor working in the 2nd respondent Corporation. He was charge-sheeted on two charges. The first charge was that he collected an excess fare of Rs. 2.00 from four passengers by issuing tickets of denomination of Rs.2-75 ps. only to each of the passengers instead of issuing tickets for denomination of Rs.3-25 ps. The second charge was that he closed the tray numbers of all denominations in the statistical returns for stage No.6 without correctly issuing the tickets. A disciplinary proceeding was initiated wherein the Enquiry Officer submitted his report on November 20, 1987. A show-cause notice was given to him on December 19, 1987 notifying the proposed punishment of removal, from service. The appellant herein submitted his explanation to the show-cause notice, upon consideration whereof, an order of termination dated January 4, 1988 was passed. An appeal preferred there against by the appellant herein was dismissed on August 12, 1998. Thereafter, an application was filed by him under the Industrial Disputes Act. The 1 st respondent herein, inter alia, held that the disciplinary proceedings were conducted validly and fairly. Purporting to exercise its power under Section 11-A of the Industrial Disputes Act, however, the Labour Court held that having regard to the fact that the amount illegally collected by the appellant was a paltry sum of Rs.2.00, the punishment meted out to him was disproportionate to the misconduct proved. The Labour Court passed the following Award:

(3.) The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant, inter alia, submitted that the learned Labour Court having exercised its discretion in favour of the appellant under Section 11-A of the Court, the learned single Judge ought not to have interfered with the same. The learned single Judge, relying on the basis of a decision of a Full Bench of this Court in G.R Reddy v. Presiding Officer, Labour Court, 1998-I-LLJ-1105 (AP) held: