DEPOT MANAGER APSRT Vs. ADDITIONAL INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The learned counsel for the respondent No.2 has appeared. Though the matter has been listed for admission, the matter has been heard in full with consent of parties.

(2.) The appellant charge-sheeted the respondent No.2 for departmental enquiry on five heads of charges on allegation that the respondent No.2, who is a Conductor with the appellant, has failed to punch the tickets issued by him to passengers on five occasions totalling nine tickets. The charges having been found established he was removed from service. An Industrial dispute having been raised and referred to the Addl. Industrial Tribunal-cum- Additional Labour Court, Hyderabad which having found the departmental enquiry to have been not proper, allowed the parties to adduce evidence. It independently came to the conclusion of the charges to have been established but found the removal from service to be disproportionate to the circumstances of the case and hence directed reinstatement into service as a fresh candidate only. In the writ petition preferred by the respondent No.2, the learned single Judge concurred with the finding of the charges having been established but was of the view that in view of the triviality of the charges the forfeiture of back service and backwages was disproportionate punishment and hence directed the respondent No.2's reinstatement with continuity in service with 50% backwages.

(3.) Mr. C.V. Ramulu, learned counsel for the appellant urges that the appellant does not challenge the direction for rein statement in service with the benefit of back service but submits that the direction for payment of the backwages should not have been passed. In support of his submission it is urged that the misconduct of the respondent No.2 was not trivial in nature as in all the five instances where the tickets had been issued, they had not been punched which could lead to the only conclusion that adoption of malpractice was intended by recollecting the tickets from the passengers while they were to alight from the bus and to utilise those again and thus cause financial loss to the Corporation. It has been also urged, as was contended before the Tribunal, that the record of the respondent No.2 has not been clean inasmuch as he had been warned two times, his security deposit had been forfeited, thrice and his annual increments had been deferred five times. Besides it is also stated, which is not relevant to the present case, that the respondent No.2 had been suspended twice even earlier.