APHC010341702005 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH FRIDAY, THE SEVENTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI WRIT PETITION NO: 25494/2005 Between: Deputy Chief Traffic Manager, A Regional Secretary APSRTC represented by Y.N.Rao, Conductor Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. VINOD KUMAR TARLADA (SC FOR Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR LABOUR 2. . The Court made the following Challenging the Award Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Visakhapatnam Tribunal’) in I.D.No.58 of 2002 2. The brief facts of the case are that respondent No.1 working as conductor in the petitioner Corporation. While respondent No.1 was conducting bus No.AP 9Z 7738 on the route Indrav 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) THE SEVENTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI WRIT PETITION NO: 25494/2005 Deputy Chief Traffic Manager, APSRTC, Vizianagaram. ...PETITIONER AND PSRTC National Mazdoor Union represented by Y.N.Rao, Conductor and another ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner: VINOD KUMAR TARLADA (SC FOR APSRTC) Counsel for the Respondent(S): The Court made the following order: Award dated 28.01.2005 passed by the Industrial Labour Court, Visakhapatnam (hereinafter called as ‘the I.D.No.58 of 2002, the present Writ Petition is filed. The brief facts of the case are that respondent No.1-workman has been working as conductor in the petitioner Corporation. While respondent No.1 was conducting bus No.AP 9Z 7738 on the route Indravathi to Vizianagaram, IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH [3332] THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI ...PETITIONER ...RESPONDENT(S) .01.2005 passed by the Industrial (hereinafter called as ‘the workman has been working as conductor in the petitioner Corporation. While respondent No.1 athi to Vizianagaram, 2 a check was exercised by the TTIs near Nowrangapur town. The TTIs found some cash and ticket irregularities and obtained spot statement from the workman and the ticketless passenger. The workman stated in his spot statement that he would explain the matter to the Depot Manager. The passenger had given his spot statement stating that he was travelling from Nowrangapur cross roads to Nowrangapur i.e. ex-stages 16/15 to 15. The workman had not collected any fare from him and he did not issue ticket to him. It is found by the TTIs that as per SR A4/0849774 the opening of Rs.6.00 denomination against stage No.15 was 682 and closing at stage No.16 was also 682. The ticket No.187/129682 which was in possession of workman was not counted in the SR, as he issued the ticket to the passenger on seeking the TTIs. Basing on the statement of the passenger, a charge memo dated 23.06.1997 was issued to the workman and thereafter a charge sheet has been issued by framing two charges against the workman. Basing on the said charges, an enquiry was ordered against the workman and the Chief Inspector conducted enquiry and submitted report to the Depot Manager. The Depot Manager, Vizianagaram issued show cause notice of removal on 28.07.1997 to the workman that he would be given punishment of reducing pay by one incremental stage for a period of two years which shall have postponing the future increments besides treating the suspension period as ‘not on duty’ for the purpose of leave and increments. On receipt of explanation to the show cause notice from the workman, the Depot Manager passed final order confirming the proposed punishment against the workman. 3 The workman preferred an appeal to the Deputy Chief Traffic Manager, APSRTC, Vizianagaram in which the punishment was reduced to reduction of basic pay by one incremental stage for a period of one year with cumulative effect. The workman preferred a review petition dated 30.10.2008 to the Regional Manager and the same was rejected. Against the same, the matter was referred to Assistant Commissioner of Labour, Vizianagaram, in which comments were received from the Depot Manager and basing on the same, as there is an industrial dispute between the parties, the same was referred to the Tribunal and the Tribunal, after taking into consideration the statements of the workman and the Management, passed Award dated 28.01.2005 setting aside the order of the Deputy Chief Traffic Manager, APSRTC. Assailing the said order, the Corporation filed the present Writ Petition. 3. Heard Sri Vinod Kumar Tarlada, learned standing counsel for the petitioner-Deputy Chief Traffic Manager and Sri V.Viswanadham, learned counsel for respondent No.1. 4. Learned standing counsel for the petitioner in elaboration to what has been stated in the affidavit contended that without any proper and justifiable reasons, the Tribunal has set aside the punishment imposed to the workman by the petitioner reducing basic pay by one incremental stage for a period of one year with cumulative effect besides treating the petitioner of suspension as ‘not on duty’ for the purpose of leave and increments. He further submitted that initially basing on the charges framed against the workman, an enquiry was ordered and punishment of reducing one increment for a period of two 4 years has been imposed by the Depot Manager and the same was modified and one year increment has been imposed by the petitioner-Deputy Chief Manager and that the same has been assailed before the Tribunal, but the Tribunal, without taking into consideration the factual aspects and the material available on record, has set aside the said order of the petitioner. As such, prayed to set aside the order of the Tribunal, dated 28.01.2005. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent No.1-workman, while reiterating the contents of the counter, contended that the Award passed by respondent No.2 is justified and valid. Respondent No.1 has already submitted explanation to the Deport Manager stating that the passenger in question on 23.06.1997 was in drunken state and checking was also exercised at Navarangpur stage in Orissa state. The passenger was in a drunken state and he did not take the ticket in spite of alarming the passengers and therefore, he was compelled to close the SR after duly punching the ticket and it was tendering to the passenger after he boarded the bus. But due to non-cooperation of passenger, the ticket was not in possession of the passenger as he did not pay the fare, thus, he has not violated the rules and regulations of the Corporation. The Tribunal-respondent No.2 has rightly passed the Award dated 28.01.2005 which is just and valid and the same is unassailable. There are no merits in the Writ Petition and the same is liable to be dismissed. 6. Perused the record and considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties. 5 7. The issue that emerges for consideration of this Court in the present Writ Petition is : “Whether the order passed by the Tribunal, setting aside the order of the petitioner-Deputy Chief Traffic manager, APSRTC, Vizianagaram warrants any interference of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India?” 8. It is an admitted fact that the workman has issued charge memo dated 23.06.1997 on the ground of ticket irregularities which amounts to misconduct. It is also an admitted fact that a charge sheet dated 09.07.2007 was issued against the workman by framing two charges. The first charge is that the workman failed to collect fare and issue ticket of Rs.6.00 denomination to the passenger and the second charge is that on seeing the TTIs, the workman tried to issue ticket to the passenger which amounts to misconduct. 9. Perusal of the record would indicate that the workman submitted his explanation to the said charge sheet, but having not satisfied with the explanation of the workman, an enquiry was ordered against the workman and the Chief Inspector conducted enquiry and submitted report dated 13.08.1997 holding the workman guilty of charges. Basing on the report of the Chief Inspector, the Depot Manager has issued show cause notice of removal on 28.07.1997 to the workman stating that he would be given punishment of reducing pay by one incremental stage for a period of two years, which shall have postponing the future increments besides treating the suspension period as ‘not on duty’ for the purpose of leave and increments. The workman 6 submitted his reply dated 01.09.1997 to the Depot Manager and the Depot Manager vide order dated 09.09.1997 passed final order confirming the proposed punishment against the workman. The workman preferred an appeal to the petitioner-Deputy Chief Manager, APSRTC, Vizianagaram and while disposing of the Appeal, the Deputy Chief Manager, vide proceedings dated 05.03.1998 modified the punishment awarded by the Depot Manager by reducing the punishment of basic pay by one incremental stage for a period of one year with cumulative effect. The workman preferred a review petition dated 30.10.2008 to the Regional Manager, but the same was rejected. Assailing the same, the matter was referred to Assistant Commissioner of Labour, Vizianagaram, raising a dispute with regard to the punishment imposed on the workman, which ultimately culminated into Industrial Dispute. The Government referred the matter vide G.O.Rt.No.358 dated 15.02.2002 to the Additional Industrial Tribunal-cum-Additional Labour Court, Visakhapatnam by virtue of Section 10(1)(c) of Industrial Disputes Act for adjudication and the Tribunal vide order dated 28.01.2005 has set aside the order of the Deputy Chief Traffic Manager, APSRTC. 10. Perusal of the Award of the Tribunal would indicate that the Tribunal while passing the Award has observed that there would be possibility of the workman demanding the passenger to take ticket and the passenger might have refused to receive the same and therefore, the ticket might have been in the hands of the workman and even by that time, the SR might have been closed and it would be obvious that the passenger was an Orissa person and 7 it is also alleged that the Orissa people made some ‘Galata’ with regard to the evasion of tickets and therefore under the said circumstances, the workman might have been in a helpless position when the passenger is refused to take the ticket from him and therefore he punched the ticket and kept it in his hands, as such, it is a case of mistake on the part of the workman. The Tribunal also observed that whenever a person raised a hand, the bus has to be stopped by that time, the SR was already closed and he tried to issue ticket to the passenger, but unfortunately by that time the checking squad entered and conducted and accordingly held that the Tribunal does not see any serious ticket irregularities committed by the workman and a small lapse was committed by the workman and in those circumstances, awarding the punishment as stated above is disproportionate and accordingly interfered with the order passed by the disciplinary and Appellate authorities. The Tribunal has passed well versed order by taking into consideration the material available on record with reference to the factual situation and this Court does not find any valid ground warranting interference of the Award of the Tribunal. Hence, the Writ Petition is liable to be dismissed. 11. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any in the Writ Petition, shall stand closed. ___________________________ JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI 07.03.2025 MP 8 250 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI WRIT PETITION NO: 25494 of 2005 Dated:07.03.2025 MP