The High Court, in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, cannot go into the questions of facts and disturb the findings arrived at by the Labour Court.

B. SUDERSHAN REDDY, J.

( 1 ) THE 1st respondent herein filed the writ petition questioning the correctness and legality of the Award made by the 2nd respondent herein i. e. , Labour Court, Ananthapur dated 4-6-1988 in I. D. No. 300 of 1987. The 1st respondent was served with the charge sheet for the following charges at the time when he was working as Conductor in the appellant-Corporation;"1. For having as saulted the Chief Inspector of Cuddapah Depot on 3-6-84 at 11-30 hrs. , in his office while discharging his legitimate duties which constitutes misconduct under Reg. 28 (xi) of APSRTC Employees Conduct Reg. 1963;2. For having unruly behaved with the Chief Inspector,cuddapah Depot on 3-6-84 at 11-30 hrs. , in his office while discharging his legitimate duties which constitutes serious misconduct under Reg28 (xxi) of APSRTC Employees Conduct Reg. 1963;3. For having uttered filthy language against the Chief Inspector, Cuddapah Depot by entering into his office on 3-6-84 at 11-30 Hrs. While the Chief Inspector was discharging his legitimate duties which constitutes serious misconduct under Reg. 28 (xxxi) of APSRTC Employees conduct Reg. 1963. "after holding an enquiry,the disciplinary auothority,on the basisof the findings recorded by the Enquiry Officer and after taking Into consideration the material and the evidence on record, passed an order dated 11-4-1985 removing the 1st respondent-writ petitioner from service of the Corporation. The Industrial Dispute raised before the Labour Court, Ananthapur in I. D, No. 300 of 1987 by the writ petitioner was disposed of on 4-6-1988 up-holding the order passed by the management of the appellant-corporation In removing the 1st respondent- petitioner from service. The same was questioned in W-P. No. 4746 of 1989 and the petitioner is allowed by a learned single Judge of this Court and the impugned award dated 4-6-1988 was quashed. This writ appeal is preferred, against the said judgment of the learned single Judge by the Corporation. ,

( 2 ) IT is submitted by the learned Counsel for me Appellant-Corporation that the order passed by the learned single Judge suffers from legal infirmities. The learned Counsel submits that this Court, in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, cannot go into the questions of factsand disturb the findings arrived at by the Labour Court. It is true that this Court in its certiorari jurisdiction, does not act in appellate jurisdiction but acts only in a supervisory capacity. It is fairly settled that it cannot review or re-weigh the evidence upon which the determination of the Tribunal is based. A perusal of the judgment of the learned single Judge would show that the learned Judge held:" the reasons assigned by the learned Presiding Officer are totally perverse and the findings recorded by him are totally based on conjectures and surmises. "the learned Judge further found fault with the Award passed by the Labour Court holding that the Labour Court had wrongly fixed the burden of proof upon me petitioner with regard to the charge relating to me petitioner s absence from 2-6-1984 to 4-6-1984.

( 3 ) IT is well settled that a finding could be said to be perverse only if it can be held that no reasonable man, in the facts and circumstances of the case, would reach to that conclusion as reached by the lower Court/tribunal. There is no such finding by the learned single Judge. Findings based upon surmises and conjectures, no doubt, cannot be said to be the findings based upon evidence. But the question would be as to whether there is any evidence and materials on record and if so, whether the said materials and record were taken into consideration and the available evidence was properly appreciated by the labour Court If the materials are not taken into consideration and the evidence is not properly appreciated by the Labour Court, the same is liable to be corrected by this Court in exercise of its certiorari jurisdiction under

Click Here to Read the rest of this document