THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.25227 of 2011 ORDER: The petitioner was employed as a Driver in A.P.S.R.T.C. He was on duty on 13.10.2003 from Myduku to Mantralayam. The passengers of the bus reported that the petitioner was under drunken condition and was driving the bus in a zigzag manner posing threat to the lives of the passengers. A charge sheet was issued on 22.10.2003 by the Depot Manager, 1st respondent herein. The petitioner submitted his explanation and not satisfied with that, the 1st respondent appointed an enquiry officer. After conducting the domestic enquiry, the 1st respondent passed an order, dated 28.02.2004 removing the petitioner from service. The departmental remedies availed by the petitioner were not fruitful. Therefore, he filed I.D.No.45 of 2006 in the Labour Court, Anantapur. The Labour Court passed the award, dated 03.07.2009 dismissing the I.D. Hence, this writ petition. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondents. The scope of interference with the award passed by a Labour Court is limited in a writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. It is only when the findings are perverse or illegality was committed that there would be scope for interference. In the instant case, the charge against the petitioner that he drove the bus in drunken condition was proved beyond any doubt. Not only the passengers of the bus but also the conductor thereof deposed categorically that the petitioner was in drunken condition. It is stated that on many occasions, he was about to hit the vehicles on the road. The enquiry officer found the charge as proved. The petitioner was not able to point out any defect in the findings. The Labour Court agreed with the findings and did not choose to interfere with the order of removal. Even where the Labour Court concurs with the findings of an enquiry officer, it would be entitled to exercise its discretion under Section11-A of the Industrial Disputes Act. It was in that context that the Labour Court verified the past service of the petitioner. It emerged that the petitioner was censured on four occasions, on as many as 14 times, punishment of deferment of annual increments was imposed and on six occasions, recoveries were made for causing damage to the vehicles. With this background, the petitioner cannot expect any indulgence. This Court is not inclined to interfere with the impugned order. Therefore, the writ petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. __________ 23.09.2011 JSU THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.25227 of 2011 Date: 23.09.2011 JSU