THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO WRIT PETITION No. 7298 of 2003 O R D E R: This Writ Petition is directed against the Award passed on 8th August 2002 by the Labour Court-III, Hyderabad in I.D.No. 167 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 K. Krishna Reddy S/o Venkaiah 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 K. Krishna Reddy and thus resorted to unfair means for securing employment in the petitioner Corporation. Hence, he has been charge sheeted on 25th 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 his statement before the E.O. in the presence of the S.I., Vigilance he has stated that he worked in APSEB from 1979-82 at Thungathurty, Velasal, Gundlapalli, Suryapet Section, Balam, Aipoor and Narsipet. He has also worked under Pullaiah AAE, Ramakrishna Rao, ADE, Narsiaha, Asst. Lineman has interviewed him as casual labour and worked under him and that time Sri Pullaiah was AAE and Sri Narsimha Reddy was DE, Suryapet. From the above evidence, it can be said that he has worked under APSEB as casual labourer and was promoted as ALM and was working as casual labourer and was promoted as ALM and was working during the time of dismissal. It is a plea of the respondents that he has not produced service-cum-identification certificate from the officer under whom he has worked. The above evidence is sufficient to come to a conclusion that he has worked in the APSEB. 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 E.O. that he has produced the fake T.C.No. 479 supposed to be issued by the ZPSS, Aipoor Village. In this connection, I would like to say that the petitioner was examined before the E.O. in the presence of the S.I., Vigilance APTS, Nalgonda and petitioner was asked then he has studied in the ZPSS School and the said certificate was denied by the Head Master on 24.8.92 (Ex.M.20). In reply to that question the petitioner has stated that he has studied from 1st to 6th class in Aipoor Primary School and have obtained the TC from Aipoor Primary School in the year 1986 and have given the application for obtaining the TC. On the basis of my application, they have issued the TC and he has submitted that he has filed the said certificate and the other documents at the time of recruitment as casual labour. No doubt, Ex.M.19 is the TC dated 8.10.1972 bearing No. 479, showing that the petitioner has studied from 6th to 9th class, but there is no evidence that Ex.M.19 is filed by the petitioner. That apart, it is the evidence of the petitioner that he has studied only up to 6th class in Aipoor primary School. If that being the position, his filing of the Ex.M.19 has not been produced either before the E.O. or before this Court nor the author of Ex/M.20 has been examined which is fatal and that petitioner was not given the opportunity to cross-examine the said author. Another reason given by the E.O. is that he photograph of the petitioner was shown to Surereddy Ram Reddy, Sarpanch of Airpoor and VAC of Aipoor and they identified the photo of the petitioner as G. Narsi Reddy S/o Sommaiah, Ex.M.15 is the certificate issued by Burureddy Ram Reddy, Sarpanch of Ramannagudem and P. Venkateshwara Rao, VAO, Aipoor Mandal, Atmakoor (S), Nalgonda District. They deposed that they were shown the photo of the petitioner by the S.I. of Police, Vigilance, Nalgonda. After seeing the photo, thy stated that his name is G. Narsi Reddy, S/o Sommaiah, his name is also shown in voter’s list (Ex.M.16) at Serial No. 63 and he is R/o Rammannagudem Village and working in Electricity Department. Ex.M.17 is the statement given by V. Mallaiah, S/o Butchaiah working as Helper 33/11 KSS Sub-station, Vep8r, Ramannagudem, Atmakoor Mandal to the effect that he has shown the photo of the petitioner and he has also certified that the said photo belongs to G. Narsi Reddy and at the time he was working as Helper/ALM in the village Ramannagudem. Ex.M.18 is the statement of M. Durgaiah, S/o Laxmaiah Village worker in APSEB Nachimpeta Village, Atmakoor Mandal, Nalgonda District, stating that the photo which was shown to him belongs to G. Narsi Reddy native of Aipoor, Ramannagudem Village. He further stated that the petitioner whose photo said to have been shown said that the said person was working as Helper since 3 years and further he stated that G. Narsi Reddy was also working as Helper. The statements of Ram Reddy, Sarpanch and P. Venkateshwara Rao VAO were taken by the S.I. of Police. It is one sided statement and the original registers are not produced either before the E.O. or before this source, to know the velocity of the certification and no opportunity was given by the E.O. to cross-examine them and they were not produced before the E.O. It is their evidence that the photo which was shown to them is of G. Narsi Reddy, S/o Sommaiah and it is also admitted fact by V. Mallaiah Helper, who stated that G. Narsi Reddy also worked as Helper. If that being the position, where is the original person? That is G. Narsi Reddy. Why he was not examined? That apart, there is no complaint by the said G. Narsi Reddy against the petitioner. From the above discussions, it can be said that the petitioner was originally appointed as casual labourer as Sri K. Krishna Reddy 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