IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO : 15352 of 1999 Between: L.Rama Rao, S/o. L.Kameswara Rao, R/o. 37-1-419(6), 2nd Lane, Ongole-523 001. ..... PETITIONER AND The Chairman, Vysya Bank Limited, 72, St. Marks Road, Bangalor-560 001. .....RESPONDENT 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 an appropriate writ, order or direction, more particularly a Writ in the nature of Certioratised-mandamus calling for the records relating to the impugned Award dt.4-12-1997 in I.D.No. 27 of 1995 (Annexure P-1) on the file of the 1s Respondnet-Tribunal and to quash the same declaring at the same time that the domestic inquiry is vitiated ab initio and void and that the impugned Award is baseless, perverse, wholly irrelevant, totally unjustified and illegal and consequently to direct that the Petitioner be reinstated with continuity of service and back wages and that he be given all benefits which are consequential and incidental to reinstatement. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.V.V.PRABHAKARA RAO Counsel for the Respondent No.: MR.M.PANDURANGA RAO The Court made the following : THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO.15352 OF 1999 ORDER: The petitioner challenges the NIL Award dated 04.12.1997 passed by the Industrial Tribunal-I, Hyderabad, in I.D.No.27 of 1995 and seeks a consequential direction to the Vysya Bank Limited (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Management’), the respondent herein, to reinstate the petitioner (hereinafter referred to as ‘the workman’) in service with continuity of service, back wages and all consequential benefits. The subject dispute was referred by the Government of India under Section 10(1)(d) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for brevity, ‘the Act of 1947’) to the Industrial Tribunal-I, Hyderabad. The reference was as follows: “Whether the action of the management of Vysya Bank Ltd. in terminating the services of Shri L.Rama Rao, Clerk, w.e.f. 31/10/91 is legal and justified? If not, to what relief the workman is entitled to and from which date?” Before the Industrial Tribunal, the petitioner filed memo dated 01.02.1997 stating that he was not questioning the procedure in conducting the domestic enquiry. Thus, for all practical purposes, the domestic enquiry by the Management must be held to be valid. The record of the domestic enquiry was placed before the Industrial Tribunal and marked as Exs.M.1 to M.43 and M.45. The Hand Book on Disciplinary Proceedings in Vysya Bank was marked as Ex.M.44. No oral evidence was adduced before the Industrial Tribunal by either side and the petitioner did not adduce any documentary evidence in support of his case. The Industrial Tribunal, having considered the matter on merits, accepted the confession letter of the petitioner dated 22.11.2004 (Ex.M.23) wherein he admitted to the charges levelled against him. The only plea raised by the petitioner with regard to the said confession was that it was obtained from him while under duress. However, no evidence was placed before the Industrial Tribunal in support of this plea. In such circumstances, the Industrial Tribunal came to the conclusion that the petitioner had voluntarily confessed to the irregularities alleged, with regard to the unauthorized withdrawal of certain amounts from the Bank Accounts. Stating so, the Industrial Tribunal held that the action of the Management in dismissing the petitioner from service was justified. Heard Sri Ch.Rama Krishna, learned counsel, representing Sri V.V.Prabhakara Rao, learned counsel for the workman and Sri M.Panduranga Rao, learned counsel for the Management. At the outset, it is to be noticed that the petitioner himself stated before the Industrial Tribunal that he was not challenging the procedure adopted by the Management in the domestic enquiry. Once the domestic enquiry is held to be valid, it is not open to this Court, in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution, to re- appreciate the evidence adduced in such enquiry or evaluate the same and come to a different finding, unless specific grounds are made out warranting such an exercise. In this regard, the observations of the Supreme Court in USHA BRECO MAZDOOR SANGH v. MANAGEMENT OF USHA BRECO LIMITED AND ANOTHER[1] are apposite: “…… But, in a case where the materials brought on record by the enquiry officer fall for re-appreciation by the Labour Court, it should be slow to interfere therewith. It must come to a conclusion that the case was a “proper” one therefor. The Labour Court shall not interfere with the findings of the enquiry officer only because it is lawful to do so. It would not take recourse thereto only because another view is possible. Even assuming that, for all intent and purport, the Labour Court acts as an appellate authority over the Judgment of the enquiry officer, it would exercise appropriate restraint. It must bear in mind that the enquiry officer also acts as a quasi-judicial body…...” In such view of the matter, unless specific grounds are made out, such as non-application of mind or perversity in the findings in the domestic enquiry, it is not open to the Industrial Tribunal or this Court to reappreciate the evidence adduced in the domestic enquiry. Though the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contended that the punishment imposed upon his client was disproportionate to the offence alleged against him, this Court finds that no such plea had been advanced before the Industrial Tribunal, inviting it to exercise jurisdiction under Section 11-A of the Act of 1947. That being so, the petitioner cannot expect this Court to entertain such a plea for the first time in these certiorari proceedings. The petitioner therefore failed to make out any ground warranting interference with the Award under challenge. The writ petition is devoid of merit and is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. ____________________ SANJAY KUMAR, J. 24th July, 2009. VGSR / PGS [1] (2008) 5 SCC 554