IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD MONDAY, THE TENTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE A.GOPAL REDDY and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR WRIT APPEAL NO : 1360 of 2008 (Writ Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the Order dated 14/11/2006 in WP NO : 21188 OF 2006 on the file of the High Court.) Between: Smt.M.Suryakala W/o.Lokanadha rEddy APSRTC, Wanaparthy Bus Depot, Mahabubnagar District. ..... APPELLANT AND 1 The Depot Manager, APSRTC., Gadwal Bus Depot, Mahabubnagar District. 2 The Presiding Officer, Labour Court-III, Chandravihar, Nampally, Hyderabad. .....RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Appellant: MR.P.VENKATESWAR RAO Counsel for Respondent No.1: Smt. B.G. Uma Devi Counsel for Respondent No.2: GP FOR LABOUR The Court made the following : JUDGMENT: (Per Sri A. Gopal Reddy, J) The writ appellant was appointed as a casual conductor on daily wage basis in the respondent – organisation in the year 1988. While she was conducting the bus on 05-07-1999, a check was exercised by the checking oﬃcials and it was found that she has not closed the SR at stage No.2 as the ticket issue was not completed. It was also alleged that she collected fare from eight passengers separately but has not issued the tickets and that she also failed to collect fares and issue tickets to ﬁve passengers. A charge sheet was issued for the alleged irregularities and she submitted her explanation denying the charges. The Enquiry Oﬃcer who was appointed to conduct departmental enquiry submitted his report stating that the charges levelled against the appellant are proved. Basing on the enquiry report, notice dated 06-12-1999 was issued to the appellant to show cause as to why she should not be removed from service. On the appellant submitting her explanation thereto on 22-12-1999, the 1st respondent – Depot Manager passed an order on 27-12-1999 removing her from service. The appeal preferred by the appellant against the said order was rejected by the Deputy Chief Traﬃc Manager by his order dated 14-09-2000 and the review ﬁled by her before the Regional Manager ended in dismissal on 23-02-2001. Aggrieved by the removal order as conﬁrmed by the appellate authority and the reviewing authority, the appellant raised an industrial dispute in I.D No. 5 of 2002 before the Labour Court – III, Hyderabad. The Labour Court after taking into consideration the material available on record though concurred with the view of the disciplinary authority that though she could collect the charges from eight passengers failed to issue the tickets and failed to collect the fare from ﬁve passengers, set aside the removal order as the petitioner worked for a short period and directed her reinstatement as fresh conductor on daily wage basis but without continuity of service and back wages or attendant beneﬁts. Questioning the award insofar as not granting back wages and attendant beneﬁts, the appellant ﬁled Writ Petition No. 21188 of 2006, which was dismissed by the learned single Judge of this Court. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that once the Labour Court gave a ﬁnding that no mala ﬁde intention can be attributed to the appellant, the Labour Court is not justiﬁed in denying continuity of service, back wages and attendant benefits. It is well settled that writ of certiorari is a supervisory jurisdiction and the Court exercising it is not entitled to act as an appellate Court. The ﬁnding of fact reached by the Court or the Tribunal as a result of appreciation of evidence cannot be reopened or questioned in writ proceedings. An error of law which is apparent on the face of the record can be corrected by a writ, but not an error of fact, however grave it may appear to be. But, however, in regard to a ﬁnding of fact recorded by the Tribunal, a writ of certiorari can be issued if it is shown that in recording the said ﬁnding, the Tribunal has erroneously refused to admit admissible and material evidence or had erroneously admitted inadmissible evidence which has inﬂuenced the impugned ﬁnding. Similarly, if a ﬁnding of fact is based on no evidence, that would be regarded as an error of law which can be corrected by a writ of certiorari. In dealing with this category of cases, the Court must always bear in mind that a ﬁnding of fact recorded by the Tribunal cannot be challenged in proceedings for a writ of certiorari on the ground that the relevant and material evidence adduced before the Tribunal was insuﬃcient or inadequate to sustain the impugned ﬁnding [see Syed Yakoob v. Radhakrishnan[1]]. In the present case, the Labour Court conﬁrmed the ﬁnding that the appellant collected fare from eight passengers separately and failed to issue tickets, but, however exercised discretion under Section 11-A of the Act for setting aside the removal order of the appellant and directed that she should be reinstated into service as a fresh conductor on daily wage basis. It is well settled that a workman is not entitled for back wages who worked on daily wage basis for a short period (see GM, Haryana Roadways v. Rudhan Singh[2]). In view of the same, we do not see any merit in the submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellant. The learned single Judge rightly dismissed the writ petition since the jurisdiction exercised by the Labour Court in ordering reinstatement and denying the back wages does not suﬀer from any illegality calling for interference. The writ appeal therefore fails and shall accordingly stand dismissed. A. GOPAL REDDY, J VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR, J 10-11-2008 ks ........REGISTRAR To 1 The Depot Manager, APSRTC., Gadwal Bus Depot, Mahabubnagar District. 2 The Presiding Officer, Labour Court-III, Chandravihar, Nampally, Hyderabad. 3 Two CD copies. [1] AIR 1964 SC 477 [2] (2005) 5 SCC 591