IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD WEDNESDAY, THE FIFTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE A.GOPAL REDDY and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR WRIT APPEAL NO : 1283 of 2008 (Writ Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the Order dated 07/07/2008 in WP NO.14364 of 2008 on the file of the High Court.) Between: K.V. Reddy, S/o. late Narayana Reddy, E.No.175561, R/o. Post: Junuthala, Mandal: Gurrampur, Nalgonda District. ..... APPELLANT AND 1 The Regional Manager, APSRTC, Nalgonda. 2 The Depot Manager, APSRTC, Bust Depot, Devarakonda, Nalgonda District.. .....RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Appellant: MR.V.NARASIMHA GOUD Counsel for the Respondent No.: SMT.B.G.UMA DEVI The Court made the following : JUDGEMENT (PER T HE HONOURABLE SRI JUST ICE A.GOPAL REDDY) This writ appeal under Cl.15 of the Letters Patent by the writ petitioner is directed against the order dt.7-7-2008 passed by the learned single Judge dismissing the W.P.No.14364/2008 at the admission stage upholding the award passed by the Labour Court-III Hyderabad dt. 15-10-2007 made in ID No.98/2006, which conﬁrmed the punishment of dismissal from service for the proven misappropriation of the funds of the Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation (hereinafter called as “the Corporation”). For the sake of convenience, the parties herein will be referred to as arrayed in the writ petition. The petitioner was initially appointed as Conductor in the Corporation on 28-2-1999, and his services were regularized with eﬀect from 1-1-2000. While he was conducting the bus on the route Devarakonda to Hyderabad on 6-3-2005 and on the return journey, a check was conducted at Mallepally by the Corporation oﬃcials. They found that the petitioner re-issued a ticket worth Rs.30/- to a passenger, who was traveling from Hyderabad to Mallepally. On the basis of the above check, a charge sheet was issued on 28-3-2005. Having not satisﬁed with the explanation oﬀered by the petitioner, an enquiry was initiated. The Enquiry Oﬃcer after conducting enquiry submitted his report holding that all the charges framed against the petitioner have been proved. Accepting the enquiry report, the second respondent called for the comments and objections from the petitioner on the domestic enquiry report. After considering the enquiry report and the explanation oﬀered by the petitioner, the second respondent issued a show clause notice dt.22-10-2005 to the petitioner to show cause as to why he should not be removed from service. After considering the explanation submitted pursuant to the show cause notice and other material made available on record, the second respondent terminated the services of the petitioner by proceedings dt. 28-11-2005. The petitioner preferred departmental appeal to the Divisional Manager. The same was dismissed by the Divisional Manager by his proceedings dt. 12-4-2006. He preferred review, which was also dismissed. Thereupon, the petitioner moved the Labour Court, Hyderabad under Section 2- A (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act (for short “the Act”) by ﬁling ID No.98/2006. The Labour Court after considering the evidence adduced by the parties passed an award dt. 15-10-2007 holding that the petitioner is not entitled to any relief as claimed by him and dismissed ID. Questioning the same, the petitioner ﬁled the above writ petition. Learned single Judge after considering the award passed by the Labour Court dismissed the writ petition at the admission stage. Questioning the same, the present writ appeal is filed. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant. Learned counsel for the appellant contends that the learned single Judge is not justiﬁed in dismissing the writ petition without calling for the record from the Labour Court. He further contends that the Labour Court failed to exercise the discretion vested in it under Sec. 11-A of the Act with regard to proportionality of the punishment and same is non application of mind of the Labour Court, therefore, the award cannot be sustainable and the same is liable to be set-aside and matter be remanded to the Labour Court for considering proportionality of the punishment. It is not disputed that a check was conducted on 6-3-2005 while the petitioner was conducting bus, on the return journey, from Devarakonda to Hyderabad and the petitioner was found reissuing a ticket of denomination of Rs.30/- to a passenger, who was travelling from Hyderabad to Mallepally. Pursuant to the check, a charge memo was issued to the petitioner. Having not satisﬁed with the explanation oﬀered to the charge-memo, the second respondent initiated departmental enquiry. The Enquiry Oﬃcer found the petitioner guilty of the charges levelled against him. Accepting the enquiry report, the 2nd respondent issued a show cause notice calling for the explanation from the petitioner as to why he should not be removed from service. After considering the explanation oﬀered pursuant to the show cause notice and the enquiry report, the 2nd respondent removed the petitioner from the service. The appellate authority as well as the reviewing authority conﬁrmed the ﬁnding arrived at by the disciplinary authority basing upon the enquiry report, which was also conﬁrmed by the Labour Court in its award. It is well settled this court in exercise of certiorari jurisdiction cannot re-appraise the evidence adduced by the parties during the course of domestic enquiry, which has been accepted by the disciplinary authority, appellate authority, reviewing authority and the Labour Court. Further, learned single Judge of this court after considering the award, refused to exercise the discretionary jurisdiction in favour of the petitioner. The jurisdiction of High Court to issue a writ of certiorari is a supervisory jurisdiction and the Court exercising it is not entitled to act as an appellate Court. A ﬁnding of fact recorded by the Tribunal cannot, however, be challenged in proceedings for a writ of certiorari on the ground that the relevant and material evidence adduced before the Tribunal was insuﬃcient or inadequate to sustain the impugned ﬁnding. The adequacy or suﬃciency of evidence led on a point and the inference of fact to be drawn from the said ﬁnding being within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Tribunal, the points cannot be agitated before a writ Court. (See: SYED YAKOOB V. K.S.RADHAKRISHNAN=AIR 1964 SC 477). A Division Bench of this court in THE DEPOT MANAGER, APSRTC, PARKAL BUS DEPOT, WARANGAL DISTRICT V. P. DEVENDER REDDY AND TWO OTHERS [1] after considering the interpretation of Sec.11-A of the Act in several judicial pronouncements allowed the writ appeal ﬁled by the Corporation setting aside the order passed by the learned single Judge ordering reinstatement setting aside the order passed by the Labour Court conﬁrming the removal order. This court in WA No.1037/2006 after considering elaborately the earlier judgments of this court in THE DEPOT MANAGER, APSRTC, PARKAL BUS DEPOT, WARANGAL DISTRICT V. P. DEVENDER REDDY AND TWO OTHERS ( 1 supra) and the Supreme Court in REGIONAL MANAGER, U.P.SRTC V. HOTI LAL [2]; REGIONAL MANAGER, RAJASTHAN SRTC V. SOHAN LAL[3]; DEPOT MANAGER, APSRTC V. B. SWAMY [4] and KARNATAKA BANK LTD V. A.L.MOHAN RAO[5] on this aspect, held that once the ﬁnding recorded by the disciplinary authority has been conﬁrmed by the Labour Court, there are no compelling reasons to interfere with the order of dismissal from service stating that he is not entitled to any relief as claimed, which includes discretionary relief of reinstatement under Sec.11-A of the Act, and this court in exercise of jurisdiction under Art. 226 of the Constitution cannot go into as to the suﬃciency of the evidence in a domestic enquiry. In the present case, the Labour Court framed three points, of which point No.2 is “Whether the punishment of removal from service imposed against the petitioner was appropriate? The Labour Court answered the same in favour of the Corporation and against the petitioner holding that once allegation of misappropriation of corporation funds levelled against the petitioner was proved, the petitioner does not deserve any mercy and the punishment of removal from service imposed against the petitioner was appropriate. The Labour Court rightly exercised the discretionary power vested in it and not interfered with the ﬁnding recorded by the disciplinary authority. Moreover, the award passed by the Labour Court discloses that it applied its mind to the question of punishment, whether it is proportionate to the charges levelled or not. The judgment cited by the learned counsel for the appellant in U.P. SRTC V. SHIVAI[6] does not support the petitioner’s contention since the Labour Court considered the misconduct and refused to interfere with the ﬁnding recorded by the disciplinary authority, which is evident from the award passed by the Labour Court. Further, the judgment cited by the learned counsel for the appellant in C.V. RAMULU V. LABOUR COURT [7] is not helpful to the case of the petitioner. In the said case, quantum of punishment had not been considered by the Labour Court except saying that the removal of the appellant is justiﬁed and he is not entitled for any relief, and under those circumstances, this court set-aside the order of the Labour Court and remand the case to the Labour Court for considering the question of penalty, whether it is justified in the circumstances of the case. But, in the present case, the Labour Court considered the quantum of punishment imposed on the petitioner on point No.2. We do not see any force in the submission made by the learned counsel for the appellant that the writ petition cannot be dismissed without calling for the records. The object of certiorari jurisdiction exercised by the High Court is to keep the exercise of powers by inferior judicial and quasi-judicial tribunals within the limits of the jurisdiction assigned to them by law and to restrain from acting in excess of their authority. Since an industrial tribunal is a quasi-judicial tribunal, certiorari would lie to quash its award, where the award is passed without jurisdiction; where the tribunal exceeds its jurisdiction; where the decision of the tribunal is vitiated by an error of law apparent on the proceedings; where the tribunal has violated the principles of natural justice or where the conclusion reached by the Tribunal is entirely arbitrary or perverse. If the case does not fall under any of the above heads, the High Court will not interfere with the award of the Labour Court under certiorari jurisdiction. None of the inﬁrmities were pointed out for exercising certiorari jurisdiction by this court. Hence, we are satisﬁed that the learned single Judge rightly dismissed the writ petition ﬁled by the appellant herein. The Writ Appeal fails and is accordingly dismissed. No costs. ______________ A.GOPAL REDDY,J ____________________ VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR,J Dt.5-11-2008 kmr [1] Judgment in WA No.574/2007 dt. 16-7-2007 [2] (2003) 3 SCC 605 [3] (2004) 8 SCC 218 [4] 2007(3) SCJ 529 [5] (2006) 1 SCC63 [6] (2008) 2 SCC (L & S) 317 [7] 1984 II LLN 669=1984(2) APL 98