THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA W.P. No. 20126 of 2002 O r d e r: The award dated 15.05.2002, passed by the Labour Court, Visakhapatnam, in I.D. No. 60 of 2001, published vide G.O. Rt. No. 1403, dated 01.06.2002, is called in question in this writ petition. The petitioner, while working as Shramik in the respondent-APSRTC, was issued a charge memo alleging that he failed to attend the duties entrusted to him properly. Thereafter, a charge sheet was issued to the petitioner, to which he submitted his explanation. Dissatisfied with the explanation, an enquiry was ordered by the respondents. The Enquiry Officer, who conducted the enquiry, reported the charges proved. Based on the findings of the enquiry report, the petitioner was removed from service on 14.09.2000. Aggrieved by the said removal order, the petitioner preferred an appeal, which was rejected, and against the said orders, the petitioner claims to have filed review petition, and when no orders were passed in the review petition, he raised an industrial dispute in I.D. No. 60 of 2001, and the Labour Court vide award dated 15.05.2002, upheld the order of removal. Assailing the said award, the petitioner filed the present writ petition. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the Disciplinary authority as well as the Labour Court failed to notice the 30% disability of the petitioner, and that the allegation against the petitioner is only dereliction of duties and there is no serious misconduct or misappropriation of the Corporation revenue. He further submits that the Labour Court failed to exercise its discretion under Section 11 (A) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, and the punishment awarded by the disciplinary authority as confirmed by the Labour Court, which is capital punishment, is shockingly disproportionate to the proved misconduct. He further submitted that the Labour Court had committed gross error in taking the previous service record of the petitioner in upholding the punishment of removal from service imposed on him by the disciplinary authority. He thus prayed that the impugned award be set aside and the writ petition be allowed. The respondents filed counter affidavit. Reiterating the counter averments, learned Standing Counsel for respondent-A.P.S.R.T.C. contended that the petitioner did not dispute the procedural aspects of the domestic enquiry. The Labour Court having appreciated the entire evidence on record, upheld the findings arrived at in the departmental enquiry, and though the Labour Court made incidental reference to the past conduct of the petitioner, it in fact, did not take the past conduct into consideration, inasmuch as while upholding the punishment imposed against the petitioner, it took into consideration the attitude of the petitioner in not carrying out the work entrusted to him and was habituated to evading the work. He submitted that the petitioner was habituated to avoiding duties with plea of having 30% disability, though his physical fitness seems to be very well and there is no hardship for him to attend his duties. He submitted that having regard to the nature of misconduct alleged against the petitioner, which stood proved in the enquiry, it cannot be said that the punishment of removal from service imposed on the petitioner is disproportionate. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for the respondent-APSRTC. The parameters and scope of judicial review of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a writ of certiorari are limited to – firstly to correct errors of jurisdiction when the inferior Court or Tribunal acts without jurisdiction or in excess or fails to exercise it, secondly correct errors of law apparent on the face of the record, and thirdly correct and interfere with the findings that are base on suspicion, conjectures or surmises or no reason. It is within these parameters, the award of the Labour Court has to be examined. The petitioner, as can be seen from the award, did not allege any procedural irregularity in the conduct of the enquiry. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that since the petitioner is suffering from 30% disability to his right limb, he is incapable of doing the works entrusted to him on 02.03.2000, 03.03.2000 and on 20.03.2000 respectively and in support of the said contention he filed Xerox copy of medical certificate Ex.W1. The case of the management is that the workman on the pretext of 30% disability to his right limb is evading the works entrusted to him and he is habituated to be idle in the garage without attending to any duties. All the four charges leveled against the petitioner stood proved in the departmental enquiry. In the departmental enquiry, which the petitioner does not dispute, was conducted according to the rules, the Enquiry Officer, upon consideration of the reports and statements of the Mechanics concerned, under whom the petitioner was posted as Assistant, and the Xerox copy of medical certificate Ex.W1 produced by the petitioner, found that the petitioner on the pretext of 30% disability to his right limb is in the habit of avoiding the works entrusted to him and causing loss to the Corporation and accordingly held the charges proved. The disciplinary authority, considering the nature of the proved charges, imposed punishment of removal from service. There can be no doubt that under Section 11-A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 wide discretion is conferred upon the Labour Court/Industrial Tribunal, to reappraise the material available on record and substitute its own findings for that of the disciplinary authority, and where it feels that the punishment awarded by the disciplinary authority is too harsh and not in proportion to the proved misconduct or is shocking to conscience of the Court can award lesser punishment. There also can be no dispute that the Labour Court/Industrial Tribunal, shall rely on the materials available before it and not take into consideration the past conduct of a delinquent to arrive at its findings. In the instant case, the Labour Court having concurred with the findings arrived at by the Enquiry Officer and the disciplinary authority, merely out of anxiety made incidental reference to the past conduct of the petitioner, and by making such incidental reference to the past conduct, it cannot be said that the Labour Court had taken the past conduct of the petitioner to uphold the punishment of removal from service imposed on the petitioner by the disciplinary authority, and more so when it had upheld the findings of the Enquiry Officer and the disciplinary authority. The apex court in V. Ramana v. A.P.S.R.T.C., held that the Labour Court while interfering with the punishment imposed by the disciplinary authority, should exercise its discretion under Section 11-A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 judiciously, and should interfere only when the administrator’s decision is illogical or suffered from procedural impropriety or was shocking to the conscience of the Court and that it was in defiance to moral standards. In the instant case, the Labour Court having regard to the proved misconduct upheld the punishment of removal from service imposed on the petitioner by the disciplinary authority, and it cannot be said that the punishment of removal from service imposed on the petitioner by the disciplinary authority as confirmed by the Labour Court, is disproportionate, warranting interference by this Court in exercise of its certiorari jurisdiction, and more so when the petitioner failed to show that there was procedural impropriety in the imposition of punishment. For the foregoing reasons, there is no merit in the writ petition, and the same is accordingly dismissed. No costs. ________________ N.V. RAMANA, J. Date: 16th March, 2006. KSR