THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT APPEAL No.2043 of 2004 JUDGMENT:(Per Sri Justice Ghulam Mohammed) This writ appeal is directed against the order, dated 03-11-2004, passed in W.P. No. 19852 of 1993 by the learned Single Judge of this Court, whereby and whereunder the learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition filed by the appellant herein questioning the award, dated 04.10.1993, passed in I.D. No. 122 of 1988 by the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Visakhapatnam. 2. The brief facts are that the appellant is a Government of India undertaking company, doing business of construction of various national projects, dams etc., whereas the second respondent is its employee, who joined the services on 23-03-1997 as Construction Assistant Grade-III at Bhilai and later on, he was promoted as Construction Assistant-II (c). While he was working at Visakhapatnam, at the relevant point of time, having regard to certain discrepancies came to the notice of the appellant during 1985-1986 regarding availing of Liberalized Leave Travel Concession, obtaining of certain transport allowances and medical claims, the second respondent was issued charge sheets dated 16-03-1985 and 28-03-1986. After enquiry, the charges were found proved and the services of the second respondent were terminated by the appellant-management as per the order dated 02-03-1987. Thereupon, the second respondent raised a dispute by invoking the provisions of Section 2-A(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, which was referred to the first respondent i.e., Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court at Visakahapatnam, and taken up as I.D.No.122 of 1988. The Tribunal, after hearing both sides and after considering the evidence adduced by them as also the material available on record, held that the appellant management failed to prove the charges levelled against the second respondent under the two charge sheets, and accordingly passed the award, directing the appellant to reinstate the second respondent into service with full back wages and attendant benefits, within a month of receipt of copy of the award, failing which it was ordered to pay the amount due to the second respondent with interest @ 12% per annum from the date of award till the date of payment. Aggrieved thereby, the appellant filed W.P.No.19852 of 1993 before this Court and the learned Single Judge of this Court vide order, dated 03-11-2004, dismissed the writ petition upholding the order of the Labour Court. Aggrieved by the same, the appellant filed the present appeal. 3. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned counsel for the second respondent and perused the order under appeal and other material available on record. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant vehemently contended that the Labour Court as well as the learned Single Judge has committed error in not considering the evidence properly and the award passed by the Labour Court as well as the learned Single Judge suffers from perversity. He contended that the Labour Court failed to consider the documentary evidence produced by the management in proper perspective and erred in holding that except the evidence of MW.1, there is no other reliable evidence to prove that the delinquent did not make a journey on the tickets furnished by him and that the management has failed to prove the charges levelled against the delinquent under two charges. The order of the learned single Judge, upholding the order of the Labour Court, is erroneous. In fact, the documentary evidence produced by the appellant-management clearly establishes that the second respondent has made a false claim. He, therefore, seeks to set aside the order under appeal and allow the writ appeal. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the second respondent vehemently contended that there is no perversity either in the award or in the order under appeal. He contended that the Labour Court has appreciated the evidence in proper perspective and came to the conclusion that the management has failed to prove the charges and except the evidence of MW.1, there is no reliable evidence, and this Court, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, cannot re- appreciate the facts while exercising certiorari jurisdiction. In support of his contention, he relied on the judgment of the apex Court in KRISHAN SINGH Vs. EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, HARYANA STATE AGRICULTURAL MARKETING BOARD, ROHTAK[1]. 6. We have considered the submissions made by the counsel on either side and perused the order under appeal and other material available on record. 7. As is evident from the evidence produced by the appellant- management, particularly Ex.M28 letter addressed by the Chief Railway Superintendent, Waltair, to the Vigilance Executive of the appellant, stating that no ticket of series No.05050 to 53 Ex.WAT to JAT of 1st class or any other class was available or sold to anyone on 18.10.1984, and so far as ticket No.212539 is concerned, it was sold against a military concession voucher, and Ex.M30 letter issued by the office of the Divisional Railway Manager, Firozpur, to the General Manager (Vigilance), Baroda House, New Delhi, to the effect that the tickets bearing Nos. 06339 to 06342 and 813129 ex-Jammu Tawi to Waltair, were not in the ticket stock book neither in the year 1984 nor as on the date of issue of letter, it is clear that the second respondent has claimed false T.A. and LTC bills by producing fictitious tickets. So far as the claim of medical reimbursement is concerned, the management has produced Ex.M35 letter addressed by the Superintendent, King George Hospital, Visakhapatnam, to the Vigilance Officer of the appellant, opining that no patient would take multiple costly drugs from the same doctor when his/her ailment is not improving, and the genuineness of the diagnosis made and drugs prescribed especially by Dr. Satyanarayana Murthy is questionable. Thus, the claim of the second respondent as regards medical reimbursement is also suspicious, in the light of Ex.M35. Having regard to these documents coupled with other documents produced by the appellant, we are of the considered opinion that the disciplinary authority has rightly found the second respondent guilty of the charges. The Labour Court has not considered the evidence on record in right perspective and erred in setting aside the punishment imposed by the disciplinary authority and ordering reinstatement. The order of the single Judge upholding the order of the Labour Court, which is not based on evidence, cannot be sustained. 8. The counsel for the second respondent raised a contention that this Court cannot re-appreciate the fact while exercising jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India and in support of his contention, he relied on the decision in (1 supra), wherein it was held by the apex Court as under: “Section 11A of the Act clearly provides that where an industrial dispute relating to the discharge or dismissal of a workman has been referred to a Labour Court, Tribunal or National Tribunal for adjudication and, in the course of the adjudication proceedings, the Labour Court, Tribunal or National Tribunal, as the case may be, is satisfied that the order of discharge or dismissal was not justified, it may, by its award, set aside the order of discharge or dismissal and direct reinstatement of the workman on such terms and conditions, if any, as it thinks fit, or give such other relief to the workman including the award of any lesser punishment in lieu of discharge or dismissal as the circumstances of the case may require. Wide discretion is, therefore, vested in the Labour Court while adjudicating an industrial dispute relating to discharge or dismissal of a workman and if the Labour Court has exercised its jurisdiction in the facts and circumstances of the case to direct re-instatement of a workman with 50% back wages taking into consideration the pleadings of the parties and the evidence on record, the High Court in exercise of its power under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India will not interfere with the same, except on well-settled principles laid down by this Court for a writ of certiorari against an order passed by a Court or a Tribunal.” 9. There is no dispute with regard to the above propositions. However, it is trite to state that in a catena of decisions, the scope of certiorari jurisdiction is well explained to the effect that wherever there is an error of jurisdiction or error apparent on the face of the record, this court can exercise certiorari jurisdiction. In the present case, the Labour Court failed to appreciate the evidence produced by the management in proper perspective and thus committed an error, which is apparent on the face of the record. Since the findings arrived at by the Labour Court are not based on the evidence on record or are perverse, this court can interfere with the same in exercise of its certiorari jurisdiction. 10. For the reasons aforementioned, the writ appeal is allowed. The order under appeal, dated 03.11.2004, passed by the learned Single Judge, dismissing the W.P. No. 19852 of 1993 is set aside, and consequently the said writ petition is allowed. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________________ GHULAM MOHAMMED, J _________________ SANJAY KUMAR, J Date:12.10.2011 Prv [1] 2010 (4) SCJ 44