THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO WRIT PETITION No. 7299 of 2003 O R D E R: This Writ Petition is directed against the Award passed on 6th August 2002 by the Labour Court-III, Hyderabad in I.D. No. 166 of 1999 raised by the 2nd respondent – workman. The A.P. Transmission Corporation, the petitioner herein has appointed the 2nd respondent as a Helper by an order dated 15th August 1989. It is alleged that the 2nd respondent who bears the name R. Sudhakar, S/o R. Ramaiah has impersonated another individual who bears identical name, at the time of selections. It is further alleged that he has produced the bogus transfer certificate standing in the name of R. Sudhakar and thus resorted to unfair means for securing employment in the petitioner Corporation. Hence, he has been charge sheeted on 23rd August 1992 in that regard. Based upon the findings at the domestic enquiry, a show cause notice was issued on 24th August 1995 and orders were passed finally on 14th March 1997 dismissing the 2nd respondent – workman from service. That gave rise to the 2nd respondent – workman raising Industrial Dispute in question. After appreciating the evidence that was brought before it, the Labour Court has found that the 2nd respondent has not impersonated and hence, the Industrial Dispute is allowed setting aside the order of dismissal passed by the writ petitioner on 14th March 1997 and the respondent – workman was ordered to be re-instated into service with full back wages and attendant benefits. The Labour Court had come to the conclusion that the 2nd respondent – workman is not guilty of impersonation on the following basis: “ Ex.M.19 and M.20, no doubt have been issued by concerned persons were examined by the E.O. and their originals are also not produced before the E.O. and their authors are also not examined either by the Enquiry Officer. But, Ex.M22 is the certificate issued by the Additional Assistant Engineer, Electric Operation, Kodad Town, certifying that the person in the photo i.e. Ramineni Sudhakar (petitioner) is working as Helper in Kodad Town. Another reason given by the E.O. that Sri Kothapalli Yeshaiah, Upa Sarpanch has identified the photo of R. Satyanarayana that the photo of the petitioner has been shown to him and he has certified the photo belongs to their village, Cherukupalli and his name is R. Satyanarayana, S/o Somaiah. At this juncture, I would like to say that it is a one sided statement before the Vigilance Officer. Ex.M.18 is the true copy of the said certificate. Original certificate is not produced before the Board and that apart, the Author of the said certificate is neither examined by the Enquiry Officer. From the above discussions, it can be said that the petitioner was originally appointed as casual labourer as R. Sudhakar, S/o Somaiah on that basis only he was called for interview and was appointed as Helper by the 1st respondent on 15.08.1979 and subsequently, he was promoted as ALM. That apart, it is pertinent to make a mention here that it is a case of the respondents that the petitioner is not the person who has served as casual labour in the APSEB and the said person is different person, so that he has impersonated the name of R. Sudhakar, S/o Ramaiah and cheated the APSEB. It is the contention of the respondent that R. Sudhakar, S/o Ramaiah has worked as casual labourer and the petitioner impersonated him while the things stood thus, where is the original person? That person has not been produced before the Court and was not examined by the Enquiry Officer. Had he been examined, the truth would have come to light, but it is not done so. More so, the Enquiry Officer has not examined the persons who have interviewed the petitioner and appointed him as Helper, which is a fatal to the case. It is an admitted fact that the facts mentioned in C.C.No. 521 of 1993 and the facts mentioned in the charge sheet are one and the same. In this connection, the learned counsel for the petitioner has cited a decision reported in Capt. M. Paul Anthony v. Bharat Gold Mines Limited and another (1999 LAB I.C. 1565 SC), wherein it is held that the fact of the criminal case and the facts of the charge sheet are one and the same and the order of dismissal already passed before decision of criminal case, liable to be set aside. In the instant case, as a matter of fact, the enquiry could have been closed since the petitioner was acquitted before the enquiry report. The learned counsel for the respondents has cited a decision reported in Depot Manager, APSRTC v. Md. Yousuf Miya (AIR 1997 Supreme Court 2232) (from Andhra Pradesh). The facts of this case and the facts mentioned in the cited case are different and the said decision is not applicable in the instant case. From the discussions made above, the findings of the Enquiry Officer are perverse and based on mere assumptions and presumptions, hence, liable to be set aside”. Pursuant to this Award, the petitioners have reinstated the 2nd respondent workman back to duty, but however, they have instituted this Writ Petition challenging the validity and correctness of the Award. To my mind, the Labour Court has appropriately assessed the evidence that was marshalled before it. If the views and opinion expressed by the Labour Court are not liable to be characterized as perverse findings or conclusions, it will not be permissible for this Court to substitute its opinion to that of the Labour Court. Nothing has been pointed out as to how the findings recorded by the Labour Court are perverse. Perversity of findings, as is well-known is the result of drawing a conclusion based upon the material on record which no reasonable body of men would have reached. On the contrary, if the view taken by the competent Court is one, which is possible, the writ Court exercising the certiorari jurisdiction shall not upset such a finding of fact. I, therefore, see no reason to interfere with the award passed by the Labour Court. Hence, the Writ Petition is dismissed. No costs. ---------------------------------- (NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO, J) 18th December 2009 ksld