THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO WRIT PETITION No. 7297 of 2003 O R D E R: This Writ Petition is directed against the Award passed on 5th August 2002 by the Labour Court-III, Hyderabad in I.D.No. 165 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 V. Ramachandraiah, S/o Narsaiah 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 V. Ramachandraiah and thus resorted to unfair means for securing employment in the petitioner Corporation. Hence, he has been charge sheeted on 27th 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 24th August 1995 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 24th August 1995 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: “ Sri I.A. Sarva Reddy, Aae/TLC Division, Nizamabad was shown the petitioner and on seeing him, he could not identify him, but the petitioner was interrogated by the enquiry officer on 3.9.1993 in the presence of S.I., Vigilance, APTS, Nalgonda wherein he had stated that the petitioner has not worked under A. Sarva Reddy, AAE/TLC Division, Nizamabad so no importance can be given to the certificate made by Sri A. Sarva Reddy (Ex.M.14). The petitioner’s statement recorded by the SI of Police, Vigilance, APTC, Nalgonda (Ex.M.15) on 3.9.93 wherein he had posed a question to the petitioner that he has shown acquittence register for the period 17.8.79 to 31.8.89 and asked can he show his signature? After seeking the acquittence register (Ex.M.16) he has shown his name at Sl.No.3 and his signature therein as V. Ramchandraiah. It is an argument of the counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner has produced the necessary certificate at the time of interview and he had stated in explanation (Ex.M.8) then only he was selected as Helper. Even assuming for a while that the petitioner has not produced any service-cum-identification certificate from the officer, under whom he worked, from the evidence of AAE and acquittence register Ex.M.16, it can be said that he has worked under APSEB as casual labour and so selected as Helper. It is a plea of the respondents that he has not produced any service-cum-identification certificate from the officer under whom he has worked. If that being the position, I could not understand how he has been selected as Helper without producing the service-cum-identification certificate? Another reason given by the Enquiry Officer that he has produced fake T.C.No. 916 with Admn. No. 2236 supposed to be issued by Z.P. High School, Janagoan. In this connection, I would like to say that the petitioner was examined by the EO in the presence of SI, Vigilance, APTS, Nalgonda and the petitioner was asked when he has studied in Z.P. High School, Janagoan and the TC taken by him does not find place in the admission register and the said certificate was denied by the Head Master on 27.8.1992 (Ex.M.22) was not examined by the EO and no opportunity was given to cross examine him by the petitioner. From the above discussions, it can be said that the petitioner was originally appointed as casual labourer as V. Ramachandraiah S/o Narasaiah and on that basis only 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