THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION No.26508 of 1999 Date: 24.02.2010 Between: P.T. Leelamma. … Petitioner and Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court-I, Hyderabad and another. … Respondents. THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION No.26508 of 1999 ORDER: The award of the Labour Court-I, Hyderabad, in I.D. No. 59 of 1997 dated 24.02.1999, is under challenge before this Court by the petitioner-workman. While the petitioner was working as a medical technologist, in the hematology department of the 2nd respondent, she was issued a charge memo dated 17.01.1996 alleging that she was involved in conducting certain Lab tests unauthorisedly in the 2nd respondent hospital. On the petitioner being found guilty of the charge she was removed from service. Aggrieved thereby she invoked the jurisdiction of the Labour Court under Section 2A(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act. The validity of the domestic enquiry was upheld by the Labour Court by order dated 20.10.1998. The Labour Court noted that two witnesses were examined on behalf of the management in the departmental enquiry; they were cross-examined by the petitioner; she held examined herself as a witness; the enquiry officer had found her guilty of clause 20 (b), (e) and (k) of the A.P. Model Standing Orders i.e., of fraud or dishonesty in connection with the employers business, and entering into the department without permission though not on duty. While re-appreciating the evidence on record, in exercise of its jurisdiction under Section 11-A of the Industrial Disputes Act, the Labour Court observed that the management had examined Lab Technician Sri Mir Sadiq Ali as a witness before the enquiry officer; he had deposed that on 14.12.1995 the petitioner Smt. Leelamma, though on weekly off, had come with a married couple and had collected blood samples from the lady; and she had prepared slides of the blood collection. Sri S.S. Hussaini, the other witness examined by the management, stated that he saw the petitioner going into the department with a lady and a gentleman. The Labour Court noted that, in her explanation, the petitioner admitted that she had brought her patient for some investigation; except for T3, T4, TSH and Tourch Complex test, she had got the other tests done outside; she had never indulged in such acts earlier; she had herself collected blood from the patient, she had collected one CDTA sample and had fed it into the cell dyne, and had left the department. The Labour Court noted the conclusions of the enquiry officer that the petitioner had conducted the test without paying or billing, and without prior permission for conducting a free test, as she never intended to pay the said amount. The Labour Court held that these acts amounted to fraud or dishonesty with the employers business or property. The Tribunal noted that the petitioner was not on duty on 24.12.1995 despite which she had entered the department without permission. The Labour Court agreed with the conclusions of the enquiry officer that the charges were established. On the quantum of punishment, the Labour Court held that the petitioner had resorted to drawing blood from patients by conducting the tests on her own which involved financial loss to the 2nd respondent; conducting of such tests could result in complications to the patients; and the petitioner’s removal from service was, therefore, justified. Sri G. Vidyasagar, learned Counsel for the petitioner, would submit that the petitioner had not committed the acts alleged to have been committed by her; the charges were concocted and false; and, in any event, the punishment of removal from service is grossly disproportionate. The Labour Court has analysed in detail the evidence adduced in the departmental enquiry, and has thereafter expressed concurrence with the findings of the Enquiry Officer. This Court, in certiorari proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, would neither sit in appeal over findings of fact recorded by the Labour Court, nor would it substitute its views for that of the Labour Court. This Court would also not re-appreciate the evidence on record to come to a conclusion different from the one arrived at by the Labour Court. The findings recorded by the Labour Court are neither perverse nor are they based on no evidence. I see no reason, therefore, to interfere with the conclusion of the Labour Court that the charges leveled against the petitioner-workman were proved. On the quantum of punishment, the proved acts of misconduct is of gross indiscipline and dishonesty. The petitioner has used the hospital laboratory for collecting blood samples of her personal clientele without permission, thereby causing financial loss to the 2nd respondent. It is well settled that this Court, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, would interfere with the quantum of punishment only in such exceptional cases where the punishment imposed/substituted by the Labour Court is one which shocks its conscience. The punishment imposed on the petitioner i.e., removal from service, for the proved acts of misconduct, is not one such. I see no reason, therefore, to interfere with the award of the Labour Court. The writ petition fails and is, accordingly, dismissed. No costs. Date: 24.02.2010 ____________________________ RAMESH RANGANATHAN,J MRKR