THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.18647 of 2008 ORDER: Respondent No.1 was employed as Conductor in Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation. When he was conducting a service on the route from K.P.H.B. Colony to N.G.Os. Colony, a check was affected. It was noticed that respondent No.1 reissued 5 tickets of Rs.6/- denomination to the passengers, who boarded at Stage No.8. Further verification revealed that those tickets were handled by respondent No.1 on 01.01.2005 in 15:25 hours trip from N.G.Os. Colony to K.P.H.B. Colony. Stating that it constitutes misconduct under Regulation 28(x) and (xxiii) of A.P.S.R.T.C. Employees’ (Conduct) Regulations, 1963, a charge sheet was issued. Respondent No.1 submitted his explanation. Not being satisfied with that, Petitioner No.3 ordered domestic enquiry. The Enquiry Officer found that the charges framed against respondent No.1 were proved. Taking the same into account, petitioner No.3 removed respondent No.1 from service through order, dated 05.05.2005. The order of dismissal from service was upheld in the departmental appeal and the revision. Respondent No.1 raised an industrial dispute before the Additional Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Hyderabad in I.D.No.115 of 2006. Through its award, dated 24.03.2008, the Labour Court has set aside the order of dismissal and directed reinstatement of respondent No.1 with full back wages and continuity of service. The same is challenged in this writ petition. Heard the learned Standing Counsel for the petitioners and the learned counsel for respondent No.1. The scope of interference with the awards passed by the Labour Court is limited and this Court does not sit as an appellate authority. At the same time, if the findings recorded by the Labour Court are perverse, this Court cannot permit the same to remain on record. The charge against respondent No.1 was that while conducting service on 10.01.2005, he reissued tickets, which were handled by him on 01.01.2005. It is not difficult to trace the identity of the tickets. Each of them contains distinct number. Before a bus leaves the Bus Depot, the Conductor is issued bunch of tickets of various denominations. The starting numbers of the tickets of each denomination are entered in the STAR document. As and how the service progresses, the details of the tickets of different denominations issued to the passengers are entered in the STAR document. In the instant case, the check affected on the service conducted by respondent No.1 revealed that he reissued or reutilized the tickets, which were already handled by him on 01.01.2005. A thorough scrutiny was undertaken and the details of such tickets were meticulously furnished. The verification revealed that the tickets, which were found to have been issued on 10.01.2005, were those that were issued by respondent No.1 himself in a trip on 01.01.2005 on the same route. Relevant entry in the STAR document was also pointed out. Except stating that the incriminating tickets were found in the tickets box, respondent No.1 did not even deny the allegation that he issued those very tickets in a trip on 01.01.2005. The charge against respondent No.1 was almost foolproof and hardly any defence, worth its name, was forthcoming. The Enquiry Officer was left with no alternative, except to hold that the charge is proved. It is not uncommon that the Labour Courts would re-appreciate the evidence and if there exists any possibility for taking a view different from the one taken by the disciplinary authority, they do take it and grant relief to the workmen. However, in such instances, the basic principles of evidence must not be ignored. In this case, the Labour Court has unsettled the findings of the Enquiry Officer absolutely without any basis. It proceeded on the assumption that reissue of tickets would mean, issuance of tickets that have been used in the earlier trips undertaken, on the same day. Another fallacious reasoning adopted by the Labour Court is that the charge did not indicate that respondent No.1 reissued the tickets with a view to gain monetary benefit. More than all that, it has placed the burden upon the Corporation to explain as to why and how respondent No.1 came into possession of the incriminating tickets. The whole approach is untenable. It is brought to the notice of this Court that respondent No.1 has since been retired from service. Therefore, the writ petition is partly allowed upholding the award to the extent it directed reinstatement of respondent No.1, but setting aside that part of the award, which extended the benefit of back wages and continuity of service. There shall be no order as to costs. ______________________ L.NARASIMHA REDDY,J Dt:01.07.2010. kdl