HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION No. 6951 of 2001 ORDER: The award of the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Godavarikhani, in I.D.No.69 of 1998 dated 13.07.2000, is under challenge by the petitioner-workman. The petitioner, a Conductor, joined the service of the Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation (APSRTC) in April, 1974 and was removed from service on 18.01.1985. He preferred an appeal to the appellate authority which was rejected on 06.09.1985. He raised an industrial dispute 13 years thereafter in the year 1998. While the petitioner was conducting the bus on 06.09.1984, between Hyderabad and Sirpur, a check was exercised by the checking officials, pursuant to which a charge memo was issued alleging that the petitioner had collected Rs.4.50ps, at the rate of Rs.2.25ps. per ticket, from a batch of two passengers who had boarded the bus at Kagaznagar, and were bound for Sirpur, having ex-stages 4 to 5, and had not issued tickets to them. The petitioner submitted his explanation stating that two beggars had boarded the bus; they had expressed their inability to pay the fare for the express bus; they had got down from the bus; in the meanwhile, the petitioner had removed the tickets from the tray; he had kept the loose tickets in his cash box; and, inadvertently, he closed the S.R. without noticing the loose tickets in the cash box. An enquiry was held and, pursuant to the enquiry report holding the petitioner guilty of the charge, he was imposed the punishment of removal from service. On the appeal being rejected, the petitioner filed I.D.No.69 of 1998 before the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Godavarikhani under Section 2-A(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short ‘the Act’). The Labour Court held that there was a possibility of the petitioner issuing the same tickets when the passengers had got down from the bus and, while the petitioner had put in more than 10 years of service, he had filed a petition under Section 2-A(2) of the Act 13 years after the dismissal of his appeal. The Labour Court, however, found the punishment of removal to be disproportionate and, accordingly, modified the order or removal into reinstatement but without back wages. Before this Court, Sri A.K.Jayaprakash Rao, Learned Counsel for the petitioner, would contend that the findings of the Labour Court are perverse and the punishment substituted is also grossly disproportionate. Sri P.Sridhar Reddy, Learned Standing Counsel for the APSRTC, would submit that no interference is called for more so as the petitioner had invoked the jurisdiction of the Labour Court belatedly more than 13 years after his appeal was dismissed. The fact that the petitioner had not accounted for two tickets of Rs.2.25 ps. each in the S.R. is admitted. His explanation was found unacceptable both in the departmental proceedings and by the Labour Court. In Certiorari proceedings, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, this Court would not be justified in interfering with findings of facts recorded in a domestic enquiry or by the Labour Court. This Court would not reappreciate the evidence on record as an appellate authority would and, save perversity and total lack of evidence (no evidence), no interference would be called for. The findings of the Labour Court cannot be said to be either based on no evidence or to be perverse. Further, the petitioner had invoked the jurisdiction of the Labour Court belatedly 13 years after his appeal was rejected. The punishment, as substituted by the Labour Court to that of reinstatement without back wages and attendant benefits, cannot be said to be a punishment which could not have been imposed at all or as one which shocks the conscience of the Court. The Writ Petition fails and is, accordingly, dismissed. However, in the circumstances, without costs. RAMESH RANGANATHAN,J Date:02.12.2010 usd