THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION No. 1564 OF 2001 ORDER: The award of the Labour Court-II, Hyderabad in I.D.No.1 of 1997 dated 21.6.1999 is questioned in this writ petition by the petitioner – driver of the APSRTC. A charge memo was issued to the petitioner on 19.10.1995 with the following charges: “1. For having opened the right side reflector of the head light of Bus No.AP9Z 4494 and damaged the wiring and burnt the head lights intentionally in order to avoid to perform the 2nd trip from Dharmabad to Nizamabad in the night, which constitutes misconduct under Regulation 28(xiii) of APSRTC Employees (Conduct) Regulations, 1963. 2. For having intentionally detained vehicle at Dharmabad bus stand in order to avoid last trip and caused inconvenience to the traveling public and loss of revenue to the Corporation which constitutes a misconduct under Regulation ix(a) of APSRTC Employees Conduct Regulations, 1963” The petitioner submitted his explanation thereto. An enquiry officer was appointed and, on the petitioner being found guilty of the charge, he was removed from service. Aggrieved thereby the petitioner filed an appeal to the Deputy Chief Traffic Manager. However the said appeal was also dismissed. The petitioner then invoked the jurisdiction of the Labour Court under Section 2-A(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The Labour Court held that the domestic enquiry conducted by the enquiry officer was valid. On the charges leveled against the petitioner the Labour Court, in exercise of its jurisdiction under Section 11-A of the Act, noted that the Mechanical Foreman at Nizamabad, who checked the head lights, had given a report stating that the petitioner had opened the right side head light, damaged the wiring system and, therefore, both the head light bulbs were burnt. The Labour Court held that the petitioner was neither competent nor authorized to open the head lights in order to rectify the defect; he should not have made any attempt to open the head lights; the statement made by the service conductor clearly showed that the driver was not provided with tools to rectify the defect; he had borrowed the tools from a nearby place; and the very fact that the driver was not provided with tools to rectify the defect showed that he was not authorized to open the head lights to rectify the same. The Labour Court held charge No.1 as partly proved. In so far as the second charge is concerned, the Labour Court held that the petitioner did not intentionally cause any inconvenience to the traveling public as he was not responsible for failure of head lights; but due to his act, he had caused loss to the Corporation; as the wiring system had got damaged, the light bulbs got burnt; and, while the petitioner had caused loss to the Corporation, he did not intentionally cause any inconvenience to the traveling public. The second charge was also held proved in part. On the quantum of punishment, the Labour Court was of the view that the punishment of removal from service was harsh and disproportionate to the gravity of misconduct as what all the petitioner had done was with the good intention of rectifying the defect though he was not competent and authorized to rectify the same. While holding that the petitioner had violated the rules, and his action amounted to misconduct, the Labour Court was of the view that it would meet the ends of justice if the petitioner was imposed punishment of denial of back wages and withholding of annual increments for two years without cumulative effect. An award was passed accordingly. Sri Mohammad Ghousuddin, Learned Counsel for the petitioner, would submit that the findings of the Labour Court on charge No.1 are perverse; it is only because the wires were damaged that the head lights had got burnt and it is only, thereafter, that the petitioner had opened the head lights with the good intention of rectifying the same; since the Labour Court had held that the petitioner had acted bonafide, the punishment of denial of back wages for a period in excess of three years in addition to imposing punishment of stoppage of increments for two years, without cumulative effect, was grossly disproportionate to the charges held established. Sri C. Sunil Kumar, Learned Standing Counsel for the respondent – Corporation, would seek to sustain the award and contend that, since the charge of misconduct has been established, the Labour Court was justified in imposing the punishment of denial of back wages and stoppage of increments for a period of two years. As noted hereinabove, the Labour Court has noted the contents of the report of the Mechanic Foreman that the petitioner had opened the right side head light, had damaged the wiring system and, therefore, both head light bulbs were burnt. It also noted the statement of the conductor that the driver was not provided with tools to rectify the said defect. The Labour Court held that the petitioner was not authorized to rectify the said defect or open the head lights, and this act of his amounted to misconduct. Even with regards the second charge, the Labour Court held that the petitioner had caused loss to the Corporation as the wiring system was damaged, and the bulbs were burnt. The findings of the Labour Court are based on the evidence on record i.e., report of the Mechanic Foreman and that of the conductor of the bus and cannot, therefore, be said to be either perverse or based on no evidence. This Court, in Certiorari proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, does not sit in appeal over findings of fact recorded by the Tribunal. In the absence of perversity, or the finding being based on no evidence, this Court would not interfere. Even on the quantum of punishment, while the punishment substituted by the Labour Court does appear harsh, it is not for this Court, in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to substitute the punishment imposed by the Labour Court with another. It is only if the punishment, as substituted by the Labour Court, is one which could not have been imposed at all or is such as to shock the conscience of this Court, would this Court be justified in interfering with the punishment. While the punishment in this case does seem harsh it is not of such magnitude as to hold that it is a punishment which would shock the conscience of this Court. Viewed from any angle, I do not see any reason to interfere with the award. The writ petition fails and is, accordingly, dismissed. No costs. __________ 24-2-2011 asp