LAWS(APH)-2008-2-84

DEPOT MANAGER APSRTC Vs. D NARAYANA

Decided On February 29, 2008
DEPOT MANAGER, APSRTC, MEDAK DEPOT, MEDAK DISTRICT Appellant
V/S
D.NARAYANA Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ petition has been instituted by the Depot Manager, Andhra pradesh State Road Transport Corporation, medak Depot - a State-owned Transport corporation, questioning the correctness and validity of the award dated 10th January 1997 passed by the Labour Court, Hyderabad in industrial Dispute No. 105 of 1995.

(2.) I. D. No. 105 of 1995 has been raised by the 1st respondent, who was working as a Conductor with the Corporation, questioning the validity of the action of the Corporation in removing him from service, by an order dated 5th August 1995. It is alleged that while the 1st respondent was conducting the bus plying between Medak and sangareddy on 1st February 1995, it has been subjected to a check in between stages nos. 6 and 7. It has been found that the 1 st respondent-Conductor had not issued tickets to three passengers, who have boarded the bus at stage No. 6, though he had collected the requisite fare of Rs. 1. 50 from them. He has been alleged to have allowed the bus to commence its journey without issuing the tickets to all the passengers. Though the 1st respondent has removed from the tray and punched the tickets of the denomination of Rs. 1. 50 Ps. , he had not actually issued the same to the passengers concerned. Therefore, the corporation has suspected that the 1st respondent-Conductor was attempting to defraud the Corporation of its revenue.

(3.) ON the contrary, the 1st respondent-Conductor would plead that the bus was full and that he is, in fact, in the process of issuing tickets and, hence, he has not concluded the entries in the statistical return in which he is required to enter the details relating to the tickets sold by him to the passengers. The 1 st respondent would plead that the very fact that he had already removed the tickets from the tray and punched them reflects the bona fide conduct and his intention to pass on the tickets to the passengers concerned and, therefore, he cannot be alleged to have attempted to defraud the Corporation of its revenue.