DEPOT MANAGER APSRTC HYD Vs. G DURGAIAH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition is filed by the Depot Manager, A.P. State Road Transport Corporation, Hyderabad Depot-I questioning the award of the Additional Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Hyderabad in I.D.No.24 of 1986, dated 25-2-1988. The Industrial Tribunal while holding the charges proved against the 1st Respondent-workman, directed reinstatement with continuity of service but without backwages and thus modified the order of removal. Contending that the relief of reinstatement ought not have been granted by the Tribunal, the present writ petition is filed.

(2.) The 1 st Respondent was conducting the bus No.AAZ 3414 on the route Nanded- Hyderabad on 8-9-1983. On a check at stage No. 15 (Naigaon), it was detected that he failed to issue tickets to as many as 16 passengers, who boarded the bus at Nanded and bound for Narsi though he collected a fare of Rs. 120/- (at the rate of Rs.7.50 per passenger) from them. He was also charged of not closing the tray numbers of all denominations in the statistical return upto the point of check. The statement of the passengers who were travelling without tickets was recorded by the checking staff and the 1st Respondent attested the same. It appears that the statement was written by a passenger by name Syed Khaleel. The explanation of the conductor was that the passengers gave him hundred rupee note and disputed the amount of fare. He demanded the fare of Rs.7.50 per adult and he also wanted them to take return of Rs. 100/- note, which was found torn and pay Rs.120/- in all. The workman also pleaded that on account of language problem, the communication became difficult and he wanted to take the bus to police station but in the meanwhile, the check was exercised. The explanation of the conductor does not fit in with the passengers' statement. This explanation has not been accepted by the Tribunal. We also see no basis for accepting an explanation of this nature. The bus travelled a long distance between the place of boarding of the passengers concerned and the place of check. If the version of the workman was correct, he should not have allowed the bus to proceed to such a long distance. Moreover, he could have examined the driver of the bus to substantiate his version. It may be stated that in the spot explanation, the workman did not take the stand that he tried to return the hundred rupee note.

(3.) In the course of enquiry, the 1st Respondent filed a statement said to have been given by Syed Khaleel the scribe of the passengers' statement which goes to create doubt about the authenticity of the passengers' statement. But, the said Khaleel was not examined by the workman. On this aspect of the case, the Tribunal held that the only lacunae in the entire case was that the statement of Syed Khaleel was not produced by the Management. From that, it does not follow that the charges were not proved. Even if any adverse inference is to be drawn for not producing that statement, it does not mean that the alleged statement of Sri Syed Khaleel should be given weight when he was not examined on behalf of the charged employee. Thus, there is no escape from the conclusion that there was cogent and reliable material before the disciplinary authority to hold that the 1st Respondent was guilty of the misconduct imputed to him.