IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD MONDAY, THE NINETEENTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 20169 of 1999 Between: The Depot Manager A.P.S.R.T.C., Ananthapur. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Presiding officer, Labour Court, Ananthapur. 2 R.Eswaraiah, Rep By its Secretary, National Mazdoor Union, A.P.S.R.T.C., Hindupur. .....RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to call for the records relating to and in connection with I..NO.195/95 DT.3/12/98 on the file of the Labour Court, Ananthapur and consequential G.O.RT.NO:568 DT.1.4.99 of Labour Employment Training & Factories (Lab-I) Department, and quash the same as arbitrary and illegal by way of issue of a Writ of certiorari or any other appropriate Writ order or direction and pass such other order or orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstance of the case. Counsel for the Petitioner : SMT.W.V.S.RAJESWARI Counsel for the Respondents : MR.K.G.KRISHNA MURTHY FOR R The Court made the following : ORDER : This writ petition is filed by the Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation through its Depot Manager, Anantapur, challenging the Award, dated 03.12.1998, passed by the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Anantapur, in I.D.No.195 of 1995. 2. The 2nd respondent-workman was working as a Mechanic in the Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation, at Hindupur Depot. On the complaint of one K.Chakravarthi, who was working as a Welder alleging that the 2nd respondent-workman has misbehaved with a woman who was standing in the bus stand, disciplinary proceedings were initiated against him and the punishment of deferment of three increments with cumulative effect was ordered. Challenging the same, a dispute was raised and the reference was ordered under Section 10(1)(C) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, by the Government. The Tribunal, while examining the evidence on record, has passed the impugned Award, by recording a finding that there is no corroborative and cogent evidence to establish the charges levelled against the 2nd respondent-workman. 3. In this writ petition, it is submitted by the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the petitioner-Corporation that though the workman has retired from service subsequently, but in view of the proven misconduct, punishment was imposed on him, by conducting necessary inquiry. But it is to be noted that the Tribunal, on appreciating the evidence on record and examining the statements recorded in the domestic inquiry proceedings, has categorically found that the evidence in support of the charge framed against the workman is not consistent to establish the charge framed against him. Since the said finding is recorded on appreciation of evidence, it is not possible for this Court to come to a different conclusion in this writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution. More over, as it is stated that the 2nd respondent-workman has already retired from service, I do not find any merit in this writ petition to interfere with the Award passed by the Tribunal. 4. For the aforesaid reasons, the writ petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. ______________________ R. SUBHASH REDDY, J 19th January 2009. ajr