A.V. SWAMY Vs. APSRTC

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE present Writ Petition is filed questioning the Award dated 12.10.2009 in I.D. No. 41 of 2008 passed by the 3rd respondent/Labour Court, which affirmed the Order of Removal dated 20.10.2006 passed by the Disciplinary Authority of the first respondent Corporation (A.P.S.R.T.C.).

(2.) THE facts in brief are that the petitioner initially was appointed a conductor in the year 1987 and continued to discharge his functions as such. Later, on the allegation of cash and ticket irregularities, after conducting a departmental inquiry, the Corporation removed the petitioner from service through Proceedings dt. 20.10.2006. Having been unsuccessful in the intra -departmental appeal and also revision, the petitioner eventually approached the 3rd respondent -Labour Court raising an industrial dispute in I.D. No. 41 of 2008. Through an Award dated 12.10.2009, the Labour Court rejected the contentions of the petitioner workman and confirmed the order of removal passed by the Corporation. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner carried the matter to this Court through the present Writ Petition.

(3.) ACCORDING to the learned counsel, the Labour Court has failed to appreciate the fact that the Disciplinary Authority has imposed the punishment of removal on the self -serving evidence of the checking officials, rather than on any other independent evidence or material of unimpeachable nature. The learned counsel has contended that during the course of departmental inquiry, the Corporation has not examined the passenger, who is alleged not to have been issued the ticket despite the petitioner's collecting the requisite fare from him. The learned counsel has also stated that the check was effected before the bus could reach stage No. 23 proceeding from stage No. 22. In other words, as the petitioner was about to issue the ticket, within one stage a check was effected and later despite the petitioner's specific request to the checking officials to check the cash balance with the petitioner, the TTIs refused to do it. On the contrary, those officials, it is contended, have forced the petitioner to close the S.R. Accordingly, the learned counsel has submitted that there is no substance in the allegation on the part of the Corporation that after collecting the fare, the petitioner closed the S.R. without issuing the ticket.