IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE TWENTY FIFTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 16052 of 2008 Between: The Depot Manager, A.P.S.R.T.C. Parkal Bus Depot, District; Warangal. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court at Warangal, 2 N.Prabhakar, RTC Conductor, E.113367m H.No 16-3-1032, Vidya Nagar, Fort Road, Warangal, .....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 issue writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of certiorari by calling all the records pertaining to the Award in ID No.33 of 2006 dated 06-08-2007 by the Hon'ble Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Warangal, Which was published in G.O.RT.NO.2286 of Labour Employment Training and Factories (Lab 1) Department dated 12-10-2007 and set aside the same as illegal, arbitrary and contrary and to Law and pass Counsel for the Petitioner:SMT.P.RAJANI REDDY Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR LABOUR The Court made the following : ORDER: The second respondent is employed as a Conductor in the Parkal Depot of APSRTC. The petitioner initiated disciplinary proceedings against the second respondent, and through his order dated 22.06.1994, it imposed the punishment of deferment of his annual increment for a period of two years, with cumulative effect. The remedies of appeal and review availed by the second respondent did not yield any results. Therefore, he sought reference under Section 10(1)(d) of the Industrial Disputes Act (for short ‘the Act’). The Government referred the dispute to the Labour Court, Warangal, and the same was taken up as I.D.No.33 of 2006. Vide order, dated 06.08.2007, the Labour Court modified the punishment to be the one without cumulative effect. The award is challenged in this writ petition. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the reference itself was made 10 years after the order imposing the punishment on the second respondent became final, and that even on merits, there was no basis for the Labour Court to interfere with the orders passed by the petitioner. Taking the second contention first, it needs to be observed that this Court cannot sit as an Appellate Authority on the findings recorded by the Labour Court. It is only when any patent irregularity is committed or any relief beyond the scope of the Act is granted that this Court can interfere with the award passed by the Labour Court. In the instant case, it was noticed that a major penalty of stoppage of increment, with cumulative effect, was imposed, without conducting any enquiry. Therefore, no exception can be taken to the view expressed by the Labour Court. Coming to the delay in making reference, the petitioner ought to have raised its objection against the very order of reference. Not only did the petitioner fail to raise an objection by challenging the reference, but also it had participated in the proceedings before the Labour Court. It is settled principle of law that a Labour Court cannot refuse to answer the reference, nor it can go into the legality or validity of such reference. Therefore, the Writ Petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. ____________________ Dt.25.07.2008 L.NARASIMHA REDDY, J GJ