THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO WRIT PETITION No. 7295 of 2003 O R D E R: This Writ Petition is directed against the Award passed on 30th July 2002 by the Labour Court-III, Hyderabad in I.D.No. 163 of 1999 raised by the 2nd respondent – workman. The A.P. Transmission Corporation, the petitioner herein has appointed the 2nd respondent as a Helper by an order dated 15th August 1989. It is alleged that the 2nd respondent who bears the name Md. Saleem, S/o Md. Khasim has impersonated another individual who bears identical name, at the time of selections. It is further alleged that he has produced the bogus transfer certificate standing in the name of Md. Saleem and thus resorted to unfair means for securing employment in the petitioner Corporation. Hence, he has been charge sheeted on 26th November 1992 in that regard. Based upon the findings at the domestic enquiry, a show cause notice was issued on 5th November 1994 and orders were passed finally on 14th October 1998 dismissing the 2nd respondent – workman from service. That gave rise to the 2nd respondent – workman raising Industrial Dispute in question. After appreciating the evidence that was brought before it, the Labour Court has found that the 2nd respondent has not impersonated and hence, the Industrial Dispute is allowed setting aside the order of dismissal passed by the writ petitioner on 14th October 1998 and the respondent – workman was ordered to be re-instated into service with full back wages and attendant benefits. The Labour Court had come to the conclusion that the 2nd respondent – workman is not guilty of impersonation on the following basis: “ The document on record would go to show that the petitioner has submitted his explanation Ex.M7, to the charge sheet wherein he has submitted that during the interview he has produced residential certificate, then only he has joined as Helper. He has worked as Md. Saleem in APSEB as Casual Labour and he has studied as S/o Kashim, and a copy of Transfer Certificate is also filed at the time of interview and also residential Certificate issued by the Mandal Revenue Officer, Jajireddygudem, wherein he has certified that petitioner is Md. Saleem S/o Khasim and resident of Kodoor Village but not Shaik Saleem, S/o Khasim. He has certified after referring to the records. The enquiry officer has reported in the enquiry that Sarpanch also has issued previously and certified Ex.M20 before V. Pandarinath Inspector of Police, Nalgonda, First Enquiry officer that petitioner’s name was Shaik Saleem, S/o Khasim, and he worked in the APSEB as Casual Labour. Subsequently, by realizing his mistake, again, the Sarpanch has issue Ex.M27 that the petitioner’s name was Md. Saleem, S/o Khasim R/o Kodoor Village and he has worked in Electricity Board as Casual Labour. The S.I. of Police Nalgonda has obtained the identification letter from the Sarpanch of Kodoor Village, Narasimha Reddy, where as the photo of the petitioner has been shown and Sarpanch has certified that the said photo belongs to their village Kodoor, his name is Shaik Saleem S/o Khasim and at the time of he was working as Helper in APSEB in Ex.M20. In villages, the Hindus will call Muslims with names not with Sir names such as Shaiks, Syed, Md. Etc. It appears in a routine way the Sarpanch might have issued Ex.M.20 stating that the name of the petitioner is Shaik Saleem. To show his identity as Md. Saleem, he has filed Ex.M21 voters list of Tugaturthy Assembly Constituency, wherein the name of the petitioner was written at Serial No. 585. C. Janardhan, AE, Nalgonda has been examined by S.E (Enquiry Officer) whether the photo of Md. Saleem S/o Khasim ALM (under suspension) Operation, Sub Division Suryapet, Nalgonda Dist. Shown to him along with the person i.e. the petitioner and asked, could he identify him? Sri C. Janardhan A.E. (Assistant Engineer) said yes, he could identify him and he was further questioned that the petitioner Md. Saleem has given the statement that he has worked under him for 125 days during the year 1979-80, was he confirmed it. Reply by Sri C. Janardhan was yes, he has confirmed it. He further questioned him that ex-casual Labour shown to him as Shaik Saleem S/o Khasim but not Md. Saleem S/o Khasim native of Kodoor Village, what did he say? The reply was No. the person shown was Sri Md. Saleem S/o Khasim but not Shaik Saleem S/o Khasim. Further he was questioned that the S.I. of Police has obtained a certificate Ex.M.26 to the affect that Md. Saleem S/o Khasim (petitioner herein) was working as ALM in Suryapet Town under the control of Addl. A.E., APSEB, Suryapet Town. His reply was yes. Ex.M.28 is the statement of the petitioner obtained by the Vigilance Cell Constable, Nalgonda, wherein the petitioner has given all the details of his working and with whom he has worked, who were his subordinate etc. The learned counsel for the respondent has argued that Ex.M.30 is the muster roll wherein the petitioner has signed as Saleem. So his argument is that he was not Md. Saleem he was different person. I do not think it so. Because signatures can be in any form but not with the name Md. Saleem, as such, I cannot agree with the argument of the counsel for the respondent. From the above discussions, it can be said that the petitioner was appointed as Casual Labour and on that basis, he worked for 125 days in the department and he was called for interview and was appointed as Helper by the 2nd respondent on 15.08.1989 and subsequently he was promoted as ALM.” Pursuant to this Award, the petitioners have reinstated the 2nd respondent workman back to duty, but however, they have instituted this Writ Petition challenging the validity and correctness of the Award. To my mind, the Labour Court has appropriately assessed the evidence that was marshalled before it. If the views and opinion expressed by the Labour Court are not liable to be characterized as perverse findings or conclusions, it will not be permissible for this Court to substitute its opinion to that of the Labour Court. Nothing has been pointed out as to how the findings recorded by the Labour Court are perverse. Perversity of findings, as is well-known is the result of drawing a conclusion based upon the material on record which no reasonable body of men would have reached. On the contrary, if the view taken by the competent Court is one, which is possible, the writ Court exercising the certiorari jurisdiction shall not upset such a finding of fact. I, therefore, see no reason to interfere with the award passed by the Labour Court. Hence, the Writ Petition is dismissed. No costs. ---------------------------------- (NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO, J) 18th December 2009 ksld