THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO.1521 OF 2004 DT.01.02.2010 Between: U.R.Krishna ………………….Petitioner Vs. The Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Warangal, represented By its Presiding Officer and another ……………………..Respondents O R D E R: The NIL Award dated 30.09.2003 passed by the Industrial Tribunal- cum-Labour Court, Warangal, in I.D.No.120 of 2001 is under challenge. The petitioner was appointed as a Conductor in the Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation (for short, ‘APSRTC’), in the year 1989. He was subjected to disciplinary proceedings under charge sheet cum suspension order dated 20.04.2000 on the following charges: a) “For having assaulted Sri M.Saidulu, on duty Security Guard on 16.04.2000 at about 10.30 hours at depot main gate which is a mis-conduct in terms of Reg.28 (xi) of A.P.S.R.T.C. Employees (Conduct) Reg.1963. b) For having assaulted the on duty Security Guard on 16.04.2000 gave blows on mouth, stomach cause blood injury to the Security Guard (on duty) and breach of discipline was committed by you which is a mis-conduct in terms of Reg.28 (xi) b (xvii) & (xxi) of A.P.S.R.T.C. Employees (Conduct) Reg.1963”. Basing on the enquiry report dated 18.05.2000, the petitioner was issued show cause notice dated 27.05.2000 proposing the punishment of removal from service. He was thereafter removed from service by order dated 14.06.2000. The appeal and then, the review preferred by the petitioner were rejected by the APSRTC under Orders dated 18.10.2000 and 15.02.2001 respectively. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner invoked Section 2-A (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 before the Industrial Tribunal-cum- Labour Court, Warangal. By its Award dated 30.09.2003, the Labour Court dismissed the petition denying relief to the petitioner. Hence, this writ petition. Sri G.Ravi Mohan, learned counsel for the petitioner, strenuously contended that the finding of the Enquiry Officer in the domestic enquiry, which was confirmed eventually by the Labour Court, is perverse. It is his case that the petitioner did not assault the Security Guard as charged and that the evidence adduced during the enquiry supports this argument. His contention is that the authorities below failed to take this aspect into consideration and accordingly, the punishment of removal from service, based on such a perverse finding, is un-sustainable. The learned counsel placed reliance on the statements made by the Security Guard-Saidulu and the eye witness, N.Veeranna, a mechanic. The learned counsel pointed out that the eye witness-mechanic specifically stated that he did not observe any bleeding from the nose of Saidulu. As the charge against the petitioner was that he had caused a bleeding injury to the Security Guard, the learned counsel stressed on the statement of the eye- witness to make out a case that the charge was un-founded. The learned counsel also pointed out that the Security Guard admitted that there was no argument between the petitioner and himself and that he had not been assaulted on purpose. It is however to be noticed that during the course of the enquiry, the petitioner admitted that his finger nail ‘touched’ the nose of the Security Guard and thereby an injury was caused. The statement of the Security Guard concerned is also of great relevance. While admitting that there was no argument between himself and the petitioner previously and that he had not been assaulted on purpose, the Security Guard stated that he did not know why the petitioner had beaten him. It is not the case of the petitioner that there was any enmity between himself and the Security Guard, which would have inspired the Security Guard to foist a false case upon him. Having admitted that his finger nail played a role in causing an injury to the Security Guard, it is not open to the petitioner to state that he did not beat the Security Guard, as brought out in the statement of the Security Guard himself. In any event, this court cannot embark upon such a fact- finding enquiry in a writ petition or resolve disputed questions of fact. It is the further argument of the learned counsel that the petitioner had rendered over ten years of service in the APSRTC and therefore the Labour Court ought to have exercised jurisdiction under Section 11-A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and modified the punishment on the ground of proportionality. This aspect has also been dealt with by the Labour Court. The Labour Court found that the charges against the petitioner were grave in nature and held that no case was made out to take a lenient view as it could lead to further indiscipline. The charge against the petitioner was that he had assaulted the Security Guard. This charge was held proved during the domestic enquiry, affirmed in appeal and revision by the authorities of the APSRTC. The Labour Court also, being the court of the first instance, did not find any reason on facts to interfere with the findings recorded against the petitioner, so far as the charges are concerned. In such a situation, it is not for this court to substitute its views even if two views are possible on the given facts. Despite the anxious and persevering efforts of Sri G.Ravi Mohan, learned counsel, I see no reason to interfere with the findings recorded on facts. There was sufficient material and evidence on record to sustain the findings against the petitioner on both charges. There is therefore no perversity in the approach of the resultant findings of the disciplinary authorities, warranting interference by this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution. Further, as rightly pointed out by the Labour Court, the charge against the petitioner was serious as he was said to have assaulted a security guard. Once the finding against the petitioner on the said charge was found to be sustainable, the Labour Court was correct in holding that this was not a fit case to interfere on the ground of proportionality of the punishment. Lenience in matters involving such grave misconduct would only breed further indiscipline in the rank and file of the organization. No case is made out to interfere with the Award under challenge. The Writ Petition fails and is accordingly dismissed. No costs. _______________ SANJAY KUMAR J., Dt.01.02.2010 tjs