K.B. SWAMY Vs. LABOUR COURT-I

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Writ Petition is preferred challenging that portion of the Award dated 16.10.2002 passed by the Labour Court-I, Hyderabad in I.D.No. 235 of 1999 raised by the petitioner herein, which denied him the benefit of back wages, continuity of service and other attendant benefits.

(2.) THE case of the petitioner is that he was recruited to the service of the Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation (APSRTC) as a conductor some time during 1986 and he had maintained good record of service till the Depot Manager, Falaknuma Depot of APSRTC passed orders on 12.04.1999, imposing the punishment of removal from service. It is stated that on 19.01.1999, he was conducting a bus of the APSRTC plying on route No. 85J on the city outskirts. A check was conducted by the checking officials between stage Nos. 4 and 5, at about 11.15 a.m. and they have noticed two passengers alighting from the bus and when questioned, those two passengers have informed that they paid the necessary fare to the conductor, but the conductor has failed to issue them the tickets. When the rest of the passengers were also checked, the checking officials have noticed that two other passengers were travelling in the bus who have neither tendered any fare to the conductor nor did the conductor issue them the tickets. Therefore, a check report has been prepared. The statements of both the sets of passengers have been recorded and the statements of two other bona fide passengers, who were found travelling in the bus, were also recorded on the reverse of the Statistical return. An adverse report has been filed against the petitioner, as the checking officials could not collect fare from the two passengers, who were found alighting at the time of check, as they do not have any money with them. Insofar as the other two passengers found travelling in the bus without any tickets are concerned, the checking officials have made them pay for the fare and issued two "top punched" tickets to them, indicating that they were issued by the checking officials but not by the conductor. Based upon the adverse report, four different articles of charges have been laid against the petitioner. The first one relates to his failure to issue tickets to two passengers, despite collecting fare of Rs.2.25 ps. from each of them. The second charge relates to failure of the petitioner to collect the fare and issue tickets to two other passengers, though they have boarded the bus at Chandrayanagutta. The 3rd charge relates to the failure of the petitioner to complete the process of issuing tickets within 'one fare stage' distance and the 4th charge relates to his refusal to receive the imputation memo and attest the statement of the passengers, which constitutes misconduct. A domestic enquiry was conducted and based upon the report of the Domestic Tribunal, the order dated 12.04.1999 has been passed by the 2nd respondent Depot Manager, imposing on the petitioner the punishment of removal from service. The petitioner invoked the provision under Section 2-A(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and raised the Industrial Dispute.

(3.) THE writ petitioner, all through, has been maintaining that a set of four drunken passengers have boarded the bus and they have been quarrelling with him right from the very beginning of their journey. It is during this process, the bus has been checked up by the checking officials in between stages 4 and 5, at about 11.15 a.m. It is true that the checking officials have noticed two of these passengers alighting from the bus. When they were questioned by the checking officials, those two passengers simply stated that they have paid the fare to the conductor, but the conductor has failed to issue them the tickets. When the checking officials carried out the check in the rest of the bus, they noticed that two other passengers have not paid the fare and they have not been issued the tickets either by the writ petitioner. At the time of check, there were 22 passengers found travelling in the bus. 18 of them are possessing the necessary tickets issued by the petitioner and four of them did not have those tickets. Out of four, as was already noticed supra, two did not tender any fare and two others made a statement that they tendered the fare to the conductor, but the conductor failed to issue them tickets.