THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO WRIT PETITION No. 7301 of 2003 O R D E R: This Writ Petition is directed against the Award passed on 12th August 2002 by the Labour Court-III, Hyderabad in I.D.No. 169 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 June 1989. It is alleged that the 2nd respondent who bears the name Md. Yousuf, S/o Md. Yakub 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 Md. Yousuf and thus resorted to unfair means for securing employment in the petitioner Corporation. Hence, he has been charge sheeted on 26th November 1992 in that regard. Based upon the findings at the domestic enquiry, a show cause notice was issued on 5th November 1994 and orders were passed finally on 24th August 1995 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 24th August 1995 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: “ The petitioner gave the statement (Ex.M13) stating that while he was working as casual labourer he used to sign in English, Ex.M.17 in the pay sheet of casual labour during the period 2.11.1979 wherein it is alleged that the petitioner has signed at serial number 10 which is denied by the petitioner, and he has clarified that he has not signed in Ex.M.17 at Serial No. 10. His name is Yousuf but his (petitioner) name is Yousuf. The petitioner has stated in his statement Ex.M.13 to that effect that originally his name was M.D. Yousuf and he has gone to adoption to his younger paternal uncle and after his death again he was taken by his original father Jafar Ali, from Singaram his original father has taken him to Anjipuramfor livelihood, thereafter also he used to be called as M.D. Yousuf. His contention is that after the death of his younger paternal uncle he was taken back by his original father M.D. Jafar Ali and went to Anjipuram for livelihood, he used to be called as S.K. Jani Miya. That is the reason his name has been recorded in voters list as S.K. Jani Miya. Ex.M19 is a certificate issued by the Sarpanch, Anjipuram Village to the effect that he was shown the photo of the petitioner, after seeing the photo he certified that his name is S.K. Jani Miyah S/o Jafar Ali, and his name in the voters list at Serial No. 613 and he has worked as Helper in the APSEB Penpahad. Ex.M.19 is also the certificate made by the Village Administrative Officer Penpahad Mandal to the same effect. Exactly the name of the petitioner is that after going to Anjipuram he was used to be called as S.K. Jani Miya as such his name was recorded in voters list at Serial Number 613 as S.K. Jani Miya. Ex.M.21 is a certificate issued by Yallapalli Pullaiah AAE Suryapet Section stating that the petitioner shown to him and he stated that he does not know him as casual labour and he has worked under him as Helper in Penpahad Substation. It is an argument of the counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner has produced the necessary certificate at the time of interview and he had stated in Ex.M.7 that he was selected as Helper. Even assuming for a while that the petitioner has not produced any service-cum-identification certificate from the Officer under whom he worked, from the evidence of AAE and Ex.M.14, a certificate made by Yellapalli Pullaiah AAE Ex.M.21 it can be said that he has worked under APSEB as casual labour and so selected as Helper. It is a plea of the respondents that he has not produced any service-cum-identification certificate from the Officer under whom he has worked. If that being the position, I could not understand how he has been selected as Helper without producing the service-cum-identification certificate? Another reason given by the Enquiry Officer that he has produced fake T.C.No. 874 with Admn. No. 2436 supposed to be issued by Government Junior College,Huzurnagar. In this connection, I would like to say that the petitioner was examined by the EO in the presence of S.I., Vigilance APTS, Nalgonda Ex.M.15 is the letter issued by Principal, Government Junior College, Huzurnagar to the Sub-Inspector of Police, APTS APSEB, Nalgonda to that effect that the Principal has verified the office records, the said TC of the petitioner is not genuine. Ex. M.16 is the TC issued by the Principal S. Pullaiah, ZPHS, Huzurnagar to that effect that M.D. Yousuf (petitioner herein) was admitted in their school on 16.06.1973 in sixth class in 1971 and the said certificate was issued on 17.06.1974. The alleged certificate Ex.M.16 was shown to the petitioner and he relied in Ex.M.22 that he has filed the TC No. 874 with ADMN No. 2436 and it was issued by Pulliah Head Master. The Enquiry Officer did not examine the author of Ex.M.15 or the S.I. of Police Vigilance, APTS Nalgonda and no opportunity was given to the petitioner to cross examine them. It is a case of the petitioner that the said TC Ex.M.15 was issued by S. Pullaiah Head Master, ZPHS, Huzurnagar, but the said S. Pullaiah Head Master was not examined by the H.O. and no opportunity was given to the petitioner to cross-examine him to elicit the truth. From the above discussions, it can be said that the petitioner was originally appointed as casual labourer as Sri Yousuf S/o Sri Yakub and on that basis only he was called for interview and was appointed as Helper by the 2nd respondent on 15.08.1989 and subsequently, he was promoted as ALM>” 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