HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION No.14917 of 1999 ORDER: This Writ Petition is filed by the employer against the award of the Labour Court, Guntur in I.D.No.1146 of 1992 dated 23.03.2000, whereby the petitioner herein was directed to reinstate the first respondent-applicant into service with full backwages and continuity of service. The first respondent – applicant filed an application under Section 2-A(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short ‘the Act’) before the Labour Court, Guntur contending that he was appointed as a Paid Secretary in the petitioner-Society on 21.06.1986; the President of the Society had borrowed Rs.2,500/- from him; the President had also taken a loan of Rs.10,000/- from him; since the first respondent could not meet the President’s request for further payment, his services were terminated orally with effect from 05.11.1992; and no orders were issued terminating his services. Before the Labour Court, the petitioner-Society made certain allegations regarding the irregularities and misconduct said to have been committed by the first respondent- applicant. They would state that, in the general body meeting held on 31.12.1992, it was resolved to remove the first respondent- applicant from service for his fraudulent activities; an enquiry was ordered; the Assistant Manager of the petitioner-Society was appointed as the enquiry officer; the said enquiry officer submitted his report on 05.12.1992; and there were allegations against the first respondent-applicant by the lady members of the petitioner- Society that he used to misbehave with them, and had made indecent remarks when they went to sell milk to the Society. The Tribunal noted that a resolution was passed by the general body, in its meeting held on 04.11.1992, to terminate the services of the first respondent-applicant, and a demand notice dated 22.11.1992 was sent, wherein it was clearly mentioned that he was terminated from service by letter dated 04.11.1992. The Tribunal noted that the petitioner-Society’s plea of the first respondent-applicant having voluntarily abandoned his services was not taken in the counter affidavit, and the petitioner-Society had failed to discharge the burden of establishing that the first respondent-applicant had abandoned his services. The Labour Court held that the first respondent-applicant had been working for more than six years; his services were terminated for alleged misconduct for which no enquiry was held before his services were terminated; and, since the order terminating the first respondent-applicant with effect from 05.11.1992 was not legal and valid, his retrenchment was contrary to Section 25-F of the Act. The Labour Court relied on a judgment of this Court in Sriram Refrigeration Industries, Balanagar v. Sri K.Anjireddy[1] to hold that, once the workman’s services were held to have been retrenched in violation of Section 25-F of the Act, he is entitled for backwages and consequential benefits. The Labour Court reiterated that the allegation of misappropriation of funds was not established by the petitioner-Society; the plea of the first respondent-applicant voluntarily abandoning his services had not been established; and, therefore, the first respondent-applicant was entitled for reinstatement with full backwages and continuity of service. Before this Court Sri V.V.Prabhakara Rao, Learned Counsel for the petitioner-Society, would submit that in as much as there was no stay of reinstatement of the first respondent-workman, and there was only stay of payment of backwages, it would suffice if this Court were to hold that, since the first respondent-applicant did not adduce any evidence to show that he was not gainfully employed for the period after the termination of his services till the Labour Court passed its award in the year 2000, the first respondent-applicant was not entitled to be paid backwages. Learned counsel would submit that, since serious and grave allegations of misappropriation were made against the first respondent-applicant, the petitioner-Society had lost confidence in him, and the first respondent-applicant on coming to know that disciplinary action was being taken against him had voluntarily abandoned his services. In writ proceedings, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, this Court would not sit in appeal over findings of fact recorded by the Tribunal nor would it substitute its views for that of the Tribunal. As long as the view taken by the Tribunal is based on the evidence on record, and the findings recorded do not suffer from perversity, this Court would be loathe to interfere with such findings recorded by the Labour Court. In the case on hand, the Labour Court has recorded that the petitioner-Society had not taken any plea before the Labour Court in its counter affidavit nor did it adduce any evidence that the first respondent-workman had voluntarily abandoned his services. The Labour Court held that no enquiry was held with regards the allegation of misappropriation, and fraudulent entries having been made, and the first respondent-workman was, therefore, entitled to be reinstated with backwages and continuity of service. The aforesaid findings of the Labour Court do not suffer from perversity and, as these findings are based on the evidence on record, no interference is called for. Sri V.V.Prabhakara Rao, Learned Counsel for the petitioner- Society, would fairly state that the petitioner-Society had not taken any plea, regarding the first respondent-workman being gainfully employed subsequent to his termination, in its counter affidavit before the Tribunal. In the absence of such a contention being put in issue, the Tribunal cannot be faulted for not examining whether or not the first respondent-workman was gainfully employed. The award of the Labour Court does not suffer from any error apparent on the face of the record necessitating interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The Writ Petition fails and is, accordingly, dismissed. However, in the circumstances, without costs. RAMESH RANGANATHAN,J Date:29.07.2010 usd [1] 1987(2) ALT 217