K. Hanmanthu vs A.P. State Road Transport Corporation,

This writ petition is filed seeking a writ of mandamus, declaring the action of the respondent-corporation in compelling the petitioner to perform dual job of Conductor and driver with Ticket Issuing Machine (TIM) service as illegal, arbitrary, unfair labour practice and contrary to the service regulations and also voilative of the provisions of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 and consequently, to direct the 2nd and 3rd respondents not to insist on the petitioner to perform the dual job of Driver and Conductor and to allow him to perform duties of Driver with conductor in any service chart and pass such other order or orders as this Court consequently may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.

Brief facts leading to the filing of this writ petition are that the petitioner was appointed as a driver on contract basis in the year 2008 in the Respondent-corporation and his services were regularized with effect from 01.12.2011.

It is submitted that the prescribed qualification to the post of Driver is 5th class and must be able to read and write the regional language i.e., Telugu or Urdu; and he must possess a valid driving licence, for driving a heavy passenger Motor Vehicle, issued by RTA, while in respect of conductors, the requisite qualification is a pass in SSC or equivalent examination and must possess conductor licence issued by RTA.

It is submitted that the petitioner was performing his duties as a driver. It is submitted that with a view to reduce its expenditure, the respondent-corporation has introduced a Ticket Issuing Machine (TIM in short) in the year 2009 and the drivers of the buses were directed to use such machines and issue tickets to the passengers and there was no conductor allotted to the such buses.

It is submitted that the petitioner was forced to accept the TIM service by threatening him with a transfer to remote depots and therefore, the petitioner has given a nod for TIM service.

It is submitted that due to the dual duties of both the driver and conductor, the petitioner is unable to concentrate on driving and due to the fear of causing accidents, due to his work pressure and that there is a chance of making wrong entries in SR, he had requested the authorities not to allot duties of the conductor also to him. It is submitted that the respondents have not accepted the same and challenging the action of the authorities in directing the drivers to also issue tickets to the passengers, the present writ petition has been filed. The learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance upon the decision of this Court in WP.No.29625 of 2011 reported in 2012 (3) ALD 494, wherein the respondents were directed not to compel the petitioners, therein who basically drivers, to perform the job of the conductor also through TIM’s.

This Court, vide orders dated 30.01.2012 in W.P.M.P.No. 48062 of 2013 in WP.No. 38670 of 2013 directed the respondents not to allot dual duties of Driver and Conductor to the petitioner herein until further orders.

The respondents have filed the counter affidavit and also a stay vacate petition in W.V.M.P.No.335 of 2014. The learned standing counsel for the respondent-corporation, while relying upon the averments made in the counter affidavit, submitted that the tickets have to be issued with Ticket Issuing Machine before starting of the bus and there is no need to issue tickets while the vehicle is running. It is submitted that the fare and distances are already programmed in the Ticket Issuing Machines and there was no need to fix the fares by the Drivers at any stage of the route.

It is submitted that the apprehension of the petitioner to have higher qualifications to operate Ticket Issuing Machines is only his imagination and that it is easy to operate the Ticket Issuing Machine with a simple training at Depot Level and such drivers were also eligible for commission on the tickets sold.

It is submitted that the petitioner was also given similar training and there was no compulsion on the drivers to perform the duties of conductor also by utilising the TIM services, without their willingness. It is submitted that the drivers are given incentives for performing the TIM services after completion of training and the petitioner himself admitted that he is performing the TIM duties since 2009. It is thus submitted that there is no prejudice caused to the petitioner in continuing the said duties.

It is further submitted that the petitioner service is from Adilablad-Hyderabad and most of the seats are booked at the starting point only and the passengers for the en-route stages/points are very few. Therefore, the contentions of the petitioner that Ticket Issuing Machines leads to confusion and derails the concentration of the drivers are not correct. As regards the contention of the petitioner that the assigning of duties of a conductor to the drivers by use of TIM machine is in violation of the Motor Vehicles Act, it is stated that Rule 72 of the A.P. Motor Vehicles Rules 1989 has been amended suitably giving power to the Transport Authority to permit the driver of a stage carriage to perform functions of a conductor by issuing tickets through Ticket Issuing Machines subject to other conditions as the Transport Authority may deem fit. Therefore, as per the learned standing counsel there is no violation of Motor Vehicles Act 1988.

Having regard to the rival contentions and the material on record, it is noticed that the vide G.O.Rt. No.865 dated 31.07.2002, Rule 72 of the A.P.Motor Vehicle Rules was proposed to be amended and vide G.O.Ms. No.21 dated 10.02.2003, Rule 72 was amended by insertion of a provisions to the said G.O. Therefore, the Transport Authority had the power to direct the driver of a stage carriage to perform the functions of a conductor also. As pointed out by the learned standing counsel, the Ticket Issuing Machines are already programmed as to the stage and the fare and therefore, there was no chance of the driver committing any mistake in issuance of tickets. Further it is noticed that the writ petition was filed in 2013, wherein the petitioner himself has admitted to have been using the ‘Ticket Issuing Machines’ since 2009. Needless to mention that the drivers/employees of the corporation have to keep themselves up-to-date with the advancing technology and follow the instructions of the authorities in performing their duties by using the said technology. The petitioner and other similarly placed persons have been issued training in this regard and the petitioner had also been using and performing the said service from the year 2009 to 2013, i.e., for a period of four years.

In view of the same, this Court does not see any reason to interfere with the directions of the corporation to the drivers to utilize the ‘Ticket Issuing Machines’ and in permitting the petitioners in to performing the duties of a conductor as well.

Accordingly, the said writ petition is dismissed.

Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, in this Writ Petition shall also stand dismissed.