IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE SECOND DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA WRIT PETITION NO : 26208 of 2008 Between: The Depot Manager, APSRTC, Bhimavaram Depot, Bhimavaram, W.G. District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Regional Executive Member, APSRTC Employees Union Eluru, West Godavari District, rep. for M.S.N. Raju Driver E.351824. 2 The Labour Court, Guntur, rep. by is Presiding Officer. .....RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to issue a writ or order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Certiorari and call for the records pertaining to I.D.No.127/2006 dt. 5.5.2008 on the file of the Labour Court, Guntur, and set aside the same as illegal and arbitrary. Counsel for the Petitioner: C.PRAKASH REDDY(SC FOR APSRTC) Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR LABOUR The Court made the following : ORDER: This writ petition is filed by the Depot Manager, APSRTC, Bhimavaram questioning the award dated 5.5.2008 passed by the Labour Court, Guntur in I.D.No.127 of 2006 in a reference made under Section 10-1(C) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short ‘the Act’). Heard the learned standing counsel for the A.P.State Road Transport Corporation. By the above said award, the Court below, on appreciation of facts, interfered with the punishment imposed by the petitioner on the workman (MSN Raju, Driver Grade-II) and set aside the same. The charge levelled against the workman is that on 29.3.2003, while he was working at Bhimavarm Depot and performing the duty on the route Pedalanka-Bhimavaram, he unnecessarily interfered in the unconnected matter and obstructed the service conductor to sign on the charge memo, which was prepared by the TTIs at the time of check and also obstructed the passengers for not giving their statements in writing, duly arguing with the checking officials, resulting in the checking officials not obtaining the statements of the passengers on the spot and that he also refused to sign the charge memo duly instigating the conductor not to sign the charge memo and created an unhygienic atmosphere and tarnished the image of the organization in the presence of the travelling public for which besides issuing the charge memo, he was also placed under suspension. To the said charge memo, the workman submitted his explanation. Thereafter, the impugned order is passed by the disciplinary authority withholding the annual increment when falls next due for a period of one year with cumulative effect. The appeal preferred against the said orders before the Divisional Manager, Tanuku and the review petition filed before the Regional Manager, Guntur were also rejected. Thereafter, the case was referred to the Labour Court, which by the impugned award set aside the punishment imposed on the workman, on appreciation of facts. After examining the statements made by all the witnesses and also after going through the cross examinations, the Court below held that the representation made by the workman will not amount to insubordination or that he interfered with the functioning of the TTIs. Ultimately it was held that the charges levelled against the delinquent were not proved and the findings of the enquiry officer are not based on material evidence and on the other hand, the evidence reveals that the delinquent made only a request and representation only and that he never interfered with the functions of the TTIs. The parameters and scope of judicial review of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a writ of certiorari are limited to – firstly to correct errors of jurisdiction when the inferior Court or Tribunal acts without jurisdiction or in excess or fails to exercise it, secondly to correct errors of law apparent on the face of the record, and thirdly to correct and interfere with the findings that are based on suspicion, conjectures or surmises or no reason. The law is also well settled that this Court does not act as an appellate authority and reappraise the evidence while exercising certiorari jurisdiction. It is within these parameters the impugned award of the Labour Court has to be examined.( see 2006(3) ALD 653) The finding of fact reached by the Court or the Tribunal as a result of appreciation of evidence cannot be reopened or questioned in writ proceedings. An error of law, which is apparent on the face of the record can be corrected by a writ, but not an error of fact, however grave it may appear to be. In the instant case, the Labour Court after appreciation of the entire evidence has rightly interfered with the punishment imposed on the workman after coming to the conclusion that the charges levelled against the delinquent are not proved and set aside the same. Thus, I see no reason to interfere in the award passed under the Certiorary jurisdiction. For the foregoing reasons, the writ petition is dismissed. N.V.RAMANA,J Dt.2.12.2008 msv