M A MAJEED Vs. DEPOT MANAGER APSRTC

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner, a conductor in the respondent Corporation, filed the present Writ Petition questioning the Award dated 03.12.2007 in I.D.No.130 of 2006, dt. 03.12.2007 of the Labour Court, which confirmed the order of removal passed by the disciplinary authority for the alleged ticketing irregularities said to have been committed by the petitioner.

(2.) THE facts in brief are that the petitioner was initially appointed Conductor on 01.05.1995 in Medchal Depot., and later was transferred to Miyapur Depot. When he was working in Miyapur depot, on 05.09.2002, the respondent officials conducted a check at Stage No.2 of Abids and noticed certain cash and ticket irregularities. On the same day, the authorities have issued a Charge Memo to the petitioner, in response to which the petitioner submitted his explanation on 16.01.2002. Not satisfied with the explanation submitted by the petitioner, the respondent Corporation went ahead with the departmental enquiry and eventually removed the petitioner from service through an Order dated 31.12.2002. The intra -departmental appeal and revision filed by the petitioner were dismissed on 14.02.2003 and 12.07.03 respectively. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner approached the Labour Court, by raising an industrial dispute in I.D.No.130 of 2006. The Labour Court, however, returned a Nil Award on 22.08.2007. Further aggrieved, the petitioner approached this Court by filing the present Writ Petition.

(3.) THE petitioner has taken a specific plea to the effect that a grave punishment was imposed on him based on the solitary statement of a copassenger, but not the very person, who is said to have been given a used ticket. In any event, neither the passenger, to whom the alleged ticket was given, nor the co -passenger, who gave the statement, was examined during the course of enquiry. Thus, merely based on the self serving statement of the Checking Officials, the Disciplinary Authority, it is contended, imposed the gravest punishment possible by way of removal from service. The petitioner has further contended that even the Labour Court, despite its expansive power under Section 11 -A of the Industrial Disputes Act ( ''the Act '' for brevity), did not choose to examine the issue in detail, but in a mechanical manner, confirmed the order passed by the Disciplinary Authority. The petitioner appearing -in -person has thus urged this Court to set aside the Award passed by the Labour Court and give a direction to the respondent Corporation to reinstate him with continuity of service and with all other attendant benefits, as well as back wages.