IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTIETH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION NO : 8247 of 1999 Between: The CHAIRMAN, Visakhaptnam Port Trust, Port Area, Visakhapatnam. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 N.SREE RAMULU, Through The General Manager, Visakhapatnam Port Trust Employees Union, Dharma Shakti Bhavan, VISAKHAPTNAM. 2 The Chairman and Presiding Officer, Insustrial Tribunall-Cum- Labour Court, VISAKHAPTNAM. .....RESPONDENT(S) 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 to issue a Writ, order or direction more particularly one in the Nature of Writ of Certiorary calling for the records in I.T.I.D.No.(c)/12/95, dt.49-1998 passed by the 2nd Respondent and quash the same as it is arbitrary and illegal and pass. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.A.KRISHNAM RAJU Counsel for the Respondent No.2: GP FOR LABOUR The Court made the following Order: Aggrieved by the award of the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Visakhapatnam, in I.T.I.D.No.12 of 1995 dated 04-09-1998, the petitioner-employer has invoked the jurisdiction of this Court. The first respondent was issued a charge memo wherein it was alleged that, while he was functioning as Driver Grade-I during the night shift on 08-08-1991, he was allocated to work on mobile crane 14 for erecting lighting towers at East Dumps, that, in the process of lifting and placing the lighting towers on the basement, the crane got severely damaged, that he had caused loss to the port property and had not reported to the section immediately. A departmental enquiry was held to enquire into the charges and the petitioner was held not guilty of the charges. The disciplinary authority, vide proceedings 25- 02-1994, disagreed with the findings of the enquiry officer and held that the charge levelled against the first respondent was established and, thereafter, imposed the punishment of reduction in pay from maximum to minimum in the time scale on the ground that he had damaged the crane. On a dispute being raised by the Visakhapatnam Port Employees Union, the matter was referred by the Central Government for adjudication. The terms of the reference read as under: “Whether the action of Visakhapatnam Port Trust in awarding punishment of reduction of pay from maximum to minimum to Sri B.Sree Ramulu on the ground that he damaged the crane is justified? If not, to what relief the workman concerned is entitled to?” Before the Labour Court, no witnesses were examined either for the workman or for the Management nor were any documents marked. The Tribunal, on a detailed analysis of the evidence on record, observed that even according to the enquiry record, two of the three Management witnesses were not direct witnesses and the third witness had supported the case of the first respondent. On examining the findings of the disciplinary authority, the Tribunal noted that the allegation against the first respondent was that he had operated the crane in pitch darkness. The Tribunal found it incomprehensible as to why the Management had assigned night shift duty to the first respondent and had directed the crane to be operated if there was darkness. The Tribunal observed that the Management, while asking the first respondent to work during night shifts, had found fault with his working in darkness. The Tribunal held that the workman had no instructions to stop his work in darkness and that the disciplinary authority merely relied on the statement of SW.2 that nobody compelled the driver to operate the crane in total darkness. The Tribunal relied on the evidence of SW.3, who happened to be an eye witness to the incident, that he had advised the first respondent to stop operating the crane since there was pitch darkness in the area and, accordingly, he had stopped operating the crane. The Tribunal noted that the disciplinary authority had conveniently fabricated the evidence of SW.3 to the disadvantage of the charged officer. The Tribunal observed that the enquiry officer had made an extensive enquiry and had recorded findings with cogent reasons and that SW.3, who had knowledge, gave evidence, which the disciplinary authority had fabricated. Holding that the conclusions of the disciplinary authority were not based on a sound footing, the Tribunal quashed the impugned order of punishment. Before this Court, Sri A.Krishnam Raju, learned standing counsel for the petitioner, would submit that since the order of the disciplinary authority is based on the evidence on record, the Labour Court ought not to have interfered with the punishment in as much as the findings recorded by the disciplinary authority can neither be characterized as perverse nor as based on no evidence. Learned counsel would submit that the conclusions to be drawn, on the basis of the evidence on record, is within the disciplinary authority’s realm and that, save perversity or no evidence, the Tribunal was not entitled to interfere. I am afraid I cannot agree. It is well settled that the jurisdiction which the Labour Court has been conferred, under Section 11-A of the Industrial Disputes Act, is both to reappreciate the evidence on record and to determine the nature and extent of punishment to be imposed for proved acts of misconduct. In exercising its jurisdiction to reappreciate the evidence, the Industrial Tribunals/Labour Courts can, on the basis of the very same evidence, take a view different from that of the disciplinary authority. It is only when the conclusions drawn by the Labour Courts are based on no evidence or the findings recorded by it are perverse would this Court, in certiorari proceedings, be justified in interference. It is not even the case of the petitioner that the findings of the Industrial Tribunal suffers from any of the aforesaid infirmities. The mere fact that the Industrial Tribunal has taken a view different from that of the disciplinary authority, on the basis of the evidence on record, would not constitute an error of law apparent on the face of record necessitating interference in certiorari proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The power to reappreciate the evidence would include taking a view different from that of the disciplinary authority. Even if this Court were to be satisfied that the Tribunal has erroneously exercised its jurisdiction, and that the view taken by the disciplinary authority is one with which it would concur as against the findings recorded by the Industrial Tribunal, as long as the findings and conclusions reached by the Industrial Tribunal are based on the evidence on record, this Court would not be justified in interfering with the matter in certiorari proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Since the findings recorded by the Industrial Tribunal cannot be characterized as either perverse or as based on no evidence, there is no justification in interfering in the matter. The challenge to the award must fail. The writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed. However, in the circumstances, without costs. ______________ 20-02-2008 usd ..... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1. The Chairman and Presiding Officer, Insustrial Tribunall-Cum- Labour Court,VISAKHAPTNAM. 2. Two CCs to G.P. for Labour, High Court Buildings, Hyderabad (out). 3. Two CD copies. Form-NIC-OGS/WP{VEENA}