IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD TUESDAY, THE EIGHTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE B.PRAKASH RAO and THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT APPEAL NO : 1451 of 2002 (Writ Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the Order dated ______ in WP NO : 6578 OF 1999 on the file of the High Court.) Between: The APSRTC, Rep by its Depot Manger, Hyderabad-I Depot, Hyderabad. ..... APPELLANT AND 1 The Labour Court-I, Rep by its Presiding Officer, Hyderabad. 2 Sri B.Dawood, S/o Syed Raheman, R/o Lalagadi, Malakpet, via Hakimpet, Ranga Reddy District. .....RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Appellant:MR.K.MADHAVA REDDY Counsel for the Respondent No.: MR.G.RAVI MOHAN THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.PRAKASH RAO AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT APPEAL NO.1451 OF 2002 JUDGMENT: (Per BPR,J) The appellant is the Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation (for brevity, ‘the APSRTC’) which filed this appeal inter alia questioning the correctness of the order dated 30.11.2001 passed by the learned single Judge dismissing Writ Petition No.6578 of 1999 filed by it whereunder the Award dated 03.08.1998 passed in I.D.No.29 of 1996 on the file of the Labour Court-I, Hyderabad, was challenged. A few facts necessary for disposal of this case are that the second respondent herein (hereinafter referred to as ‘the workman’) was working as a Driver in the APSRTC. While so, he was involved in an accident which resulted in a casualty and injuries to passengers. The appellant took up a domestic enquiry and after following the due procedure passed an order of removal of the workman on 19.06.1991 as provided under the APSRTC Regulations. The workman therefore raised an Industrial Dispute and the same was taken up as I.D.No.29 of 1996. During the pendency of enquiry before the Labour Court, the workman herein filed a memo accepting the validity of the procedure followed in the domestic enquiry. Thereupon, the matter was taken up for enquiry wherein both sides let in their evidence only to the extent of producing documents. No oral evidence was adduced on either side. Ex.W.1 was got marked on behalf of the workman whereas Exs.M.1 to M.19 were got marked on behalf of the management/appellant. Considering the same, the Labour Court held that the appellant had failed to establish the charges as against the workman and as several questions arose, the benefit of doubt was given to the workman. Hence, the Labour Court passed an Award directing reinstatement of the workman in service with continuity of service, attendant benefits and full back wages. Challenging the said Award, the appellant filed the writ petition before this Court. The learned single Judge, after considering the material available on record, did not accept the pleas raised by the appellant. However, the learned Judge restricted the payment of back wages to 50% as against the full back wages awarded by the Labour Court. Accordingly, the learned Judge allowed the writ petition only in part. Aggrieved thereby, the present writ appeal has been filed. The learned standing counsel for the appellant Corporation submitted that having regard to the charges framed against the second respondent and the nature of the enquiry undertaken, it was not open to the Labour Court to go into the merits of the case and appreciate the evidence. In support of his contention, the learned standing counsel placed reliance upon the Judgment of the Supreme Court in USHA BRECO MAZDOOR SANGH v. MANAGEMENT OF USHA BRECO LIMITED[1]. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the workman repelled the said contention and submitted that having regard to the discretion exercised by the Labour Court and thereafter, by the learned single Judge, it is not open to the appellant to attack the same. Considering the submissions, ultimately the question which arises for consideration in this appeal in view of the invocation of Section 11-A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, is as to whether the Labour Court can re-appreciate the evidence and come to a different conclusion in regard thereto. After hearing both the learned counsel and after perusing the entire material, it is seen that the Labour Court had given a categorical finding that the appellant had failed to establish the charges framed against the workman. The memo filed by the workman before the Labour Court was with regard to the validity of the procedure adopted in the domestic enquiry and was not in acceptance of the findings recorded in such enquiry. As regards such findings, the scope of interference by the Labour Court is now limited. A distinction has to be been drawn between two situations – one, in case of perversity and another, where two views are possible. In para 28 of the USHA BRECO, it was held that in the second situation, it is not open for the Labour Court to substitute its view whereas in the present case the Labour Court gave a finding that there was a perversity in the finding and especially as there is no evidence, the workman cannot be held guilty. Having regard to the same and especially the discretion exercised by the learned single Judge, we do not find any reason warranting interference in this appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent. The Writ Appeal is accordingly dismissed. No costs. _____________________ B.PRAKASH RAO, J. ____________________ SANJAY KUMAR, J. 8th September, 2009. PGS/VGSR [1] 2008 (5) SCJ 439 = (2008) 5 SCC 554