THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION No. 4946 OF 2006 O R D E R: The 1st respondent (for short “the respondent”) is employed as Conductor in the APSRTC. In the year 1993, he was working in the Karimnagar Depot. On 16.5.1993, he was conducting a bus on the route from Odedu to Kunaram. A check was exercised by the TTIs, between stages 19 and 18, at about 10 A.M. On the basis of the observations in the check, a charge sheet dated 27.5.1993 was issued to the respondent, wherein 7 charges were framed. The gist of the charges is that the respondent collected fare of Rs.2/- each, from three passengers, but issued used tickets to them. Similar allegation was made, as regards issuance of a ticket for Rs.2/- denomination to a lady passenger. It was alleged that the respondent had not only failed to maintain the S.R. properly, but has quarreled with the checking staff and threatened the passengers. The respondent submitted his explanation, and not being satisfied with that, the petitioner appointed an enquiry officer. Departmental enquiry was conducted, and a report was filed, to the effect that the charges framed against the respondent are proved. Through his order dated 11.10.1993, the petitioner directed removal of the respondent from service. The remedies of appeal and review, availed by the respondent, did not yield any result. Therefore, he approached the Labour Court, Godavarikhani, by filing I.D.No.150 of 1996, under Section 2-A(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act. Through its award, dated 16.7.2005, the Labour Court had set aside the order of removal, directed reinstatement of the petitioner with 50% back wages, and awarded compensation of Rs.5,000/- to the respondent. The same is challenged in this writ petition. The petitioner contends that the Labour Court reversed the findings recorded during the domestic enquiry, without there being any material. It is also stated that the conclusions arrived at by the Labour Court are not supported by evidence. Exception is taken to the award of compensation by the Labour Court. The respondent filed a counter affidavit, supporting the award passed in his favour. He stated that the Labour Court had examined the various findings recorded by the enquiry officer, with reference to the oral and documentary evidence, and has arrived at a just and proper conclusion. Heard Ms. P. Rajini, learned counsel for the petitioner, and Sri A. K. Jayaprakash Rao, learned counsel for the respondent. The charges framed against the respondent are no doubt serious in nature. They not only reflect the alleged issuance of used tickets, but also high-handed action, on the part of the respondent. He is alleged to have torn off the Statistical Report and even threatened the passengers, from giving any statement. In the domestic enquiry, number of witnesses were examined, and in the course of satisfying itself, as to the correctness of the findings recorded by the enquiry officer, the Labour Court had undertaken extensive discussion. The respondent emphatically pleaded before the Labour Court that the checking staff had personal animosity against him, and a false case was registered against him. It was also alleged that some of the checking officials were in drunken condition, and it is they, who have torn out the Statistical Report. Therefore, much would depend upon the actual occurrence at the time of checking. If the plea taken by the respondent gains acceptability, the charges lose their significance. One of the passengers, by name Ramagiri Mahender, was examined in the domestic enquiry. He is said to have boarded the bus at Odedu to go to Kasarlagadda, and that he was issued a ticket by the respondent, after collecting the fare of Rs.5/-. He stated that in the process of checking the bus, the officials have come to a seat, in which he was sitting, and they asked a old woman sitting by his side, as to whether the ticket on the floor of the bus belongs to her. It is stated that when the respondent was trying to explain the checking officials, they pushed him, as a result of this, the respondent fell on a seat reserved for ladies. He has also categorically stated that the TTIs have torn off the Statistical Report, into 5 or 6 pieces. This witness was not cross-examined. Another witness, who was examined in the domestic enquiry, was one Mr. O. Sripathi of Odedu village. He not only deposed that the TTI has pushed the conductor, resulting in his falling down in the ladies seat, but also that the TTI was in a drunken condition. He stated that the S.I. of Police, Mutharam, has recorded the statement of passengers, who revealed that the TTIs have torn off the S.R., into pieces. An important piece of documentary evidence is Ex.M-3, the statement recorded by the S.I. of Police, Mutharam, from the passengers of the bus. This revealed that the checking staff have used force against the conductor and they have torn off the SR into pieces. The Labour Court had discussed each and every charge, with reference to the oral and documentary evidence, on record. This is one of the rare cases, where the Labour Court itself was surprised about the conduct of the checking officials, and obviously for that reason, was tempted to award damages, apart from granting the relief. The learned counsel for the petitioner is not able to point out any material defect in the conclusions arrived at by the Labour Court. At any rate, this court cannot act as an appellate authority, on the factual findings recorded by the Labour Court, unless they are shown to be perverse. One aspect of the matter, which needs to be taken into account, is that howsoever impressed the Labour Court may be, it cannot grant the relief of compensation. Such a relief is totally outside the scope of the powers of the Labour Court, under the I.D. Act. Therefore, the writ petition is partly allowed, upholding the award of the Labour Court, but setting aside the direction as to compensation. There shall be no order as to costs. ________________ 23rd July 2008 Note: L. R. copies to be marked. (B/o) PAN