B. SUDERSHAN REDDY, J. ( 1 ) THE petitioner in the instant writ petition impugns the legality of the Award dated 3-6-1994 in ID No. 126 of 1992 on the file of the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, visakhapatnam. ( 2 ) THE petitioner at the relevant rime was working as Conductor in the respondent- corporation. The following charges were framed against him: (1) For having failed to issue tickets to a batch of nine passengers who boarded the bus at Asilmetta and found alighting at pipe line stages 4 to 11 even though you have collected tickets fare at the boarding point itself which detected by the said TTIs. , visakhapatnam while you were conducting vehicle No. AAZ-1963 on route No. 7 on 25-4-1982. (2) For having already closed the SR up to Stage No. 14 of 0. 70 paise and 0. 80 paise denomination arid rs. 1. 00 denomination and remaining denominations upto stage No. 11. (3) The above charges constitute misconduct under Reg. 28 (a) (xxxix) and (xxxii) of APSRTC Employees conduct Regulations, 1963. ( 3 ) THE petitioner submitted his explanation inter alia contending that the bus was heavily loaded with passengers at stage No. 4 Aslimetta and so he could not detect the passengers who did not take tickets. The petitioner, however, denied the payment of fare by the passengers to him. The passengers have stated so before the inspectors and checking officials to avoid heavy penalty. It is the specific case of the petitioner that nine passengers in question never tendered any fare whatsoever after their boarding. However, at the stage no. 10, the petitioner himself noticed and collected the fare from those passengers simultaneously the checking officials stopped the bus and checked it even before he could issue tickets. This in substance is the explanation of the petitioner. ( 4 ) IT is the case of the respondent Corporation that the petitioner committed cash and ticket irregularity on 25-4-1982 while conducting the bus on Route No. 7. The irregularities were detected by the checking officials of the Corporation. Charges were framed against the petitioner. Adequate opportunity has been provided to the petitioner to submit his explanation and lead evidence. The petitioner failed to submit any convincing explanation. The enquiry Officer found the charges proved against the petitioner. A show-cause notice has been issued and only thereafter the order of removal is passed. Charges were framed against the petitioner. Adequate opportunity has been provided to the petitioner to submit his explanation and lead evidence. The petitioner failed to submit any convincing explanation. The enquiry Officer found the charges proved against the petitioner. A show-cause notice has been issued and only thereafter the order of removal is passed. The disciplinary authority disbelieved the version given by the petitioner that the passengers paid the fare just before the check took place. It is the specific case of the respondent-Corporation that at the time of check there were only 24 passengers including the nine ticketless passengers. It is the case of the respbndent- corporation that if the passengers had not paid the fare at the boarding point and had paid the fare just before the check took place, the petitioner should have stopped the bus unless and until he completes the ticket issuing. Since there are only 24 passengers, the petitioner could have easily verified to know as to who were those passengers travelling without tickets. ( 5 ) THE Labour Court once again re appreciated the evidence available on record. No documents were marked on behalf of the petitioner. Ex. M-1 to Ex. M-13 including the statement of the passengers and Statistical Return were marked by the management. The Labour Court found that it could be easily verified from the S. R. that there are only 24 passengers including the nine ticketless passengers. The Labour court believed the statement of the passengers that they have paid the requisite fare immediately after their boarding into the bus. In the circumstances, the Labour court believed that the petitioner herein failed to issue tickets to nine passengers out . of 24 passengers travelling in the bus. In the circumstances, the Labour Court also came to the conclusion that the charges framed against him held proved beyond any doubt ( 6 ) IN this writ petition, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there is no evidence whatsoever available on record to show that there were only 24 passengers. There is nothing on record to disbelieve the version given by the petitioner that the bus was heavily loaded with the passengers and the petitioner could not notice the boarding of those rune passengers into the bus. There is nothing on record to disbelieve the version given by the petitioner that the bus was heavily loaded with the passengers and the petitioner could not notice the boarding of those rune passengers into the bus. The petitioner having noticed the nine passengers, maybe belatedly, collected the fare and was about to issue the tickets and in the meanwhile there was a surprise check. No other point is urged. ( 7 ) IT is well settled that this Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India does not exercise any appellate jurisdiction over the awards passed by the Labour Courts industrial Tribunals. This Court would interfere if the Award suffers from any error apparent on the face of the record. This Court also would interfere in the matter if the Labour Courts/industrial tribunals record any perversed findings. It shall be open to this Court to interfere in the case where any substantial piece of evidence is eschewed from consideration by the Tribunals. None of such situations arise in this case. It is nobody s case that the findings recorded by the Tribunal are perverse in nature. The findings recorded by the Tribunal are based upon the appreciation of evidence and material available on record. There is a categorical finding by the Labour Court that the petitioner having collected the fare from nine passengers failed to issue tickets. The same has undoubtedly resulted in loss to the exchequer of the Corporation. Mere assertion by the petitioner that the bus was overloaded and there were more than 24 passengers is of no help to the petitioner. Admittedly, there is no evidence whatsoever on this aspect of the matter led by the petitioner. On the other hand, the enquiry Officer and the disciplinary authority found that there were only 24 passengers in the bus and out of them nine passengers were travelling without tickets. It is not possible for this Court to disturb such findings. ( 8 ) THE learned Counsel for the petitioner sri D. Ramalinga Swamy, however, contends that the punishment of removal of the petitioner from service of the corporation is totally disproportionate to the proven misconduct of the petitioner. It is submitted that the Labour Court failed to advert itself to this aspect of the matter. I find it difficult to accept the submission made by the learned Counsel for the petitioner. It is submitted that the Labour Court failed to advert itself to this aspect of the matter. I find it difficult to accept the submission made by the learned Counsel for the petitioner. The Labour Court framed the point as to whether the punishment imposed by the management it justifiable. The Labour Court observed that the petitioner had collected the fare and not issued the tickets. The Labour Court also noticed the fact that the petitioner within a span of two years of his service was kept under suspension twice and removed for the second offence. The Labour Court also relied upon the statement of the passengers clearly showing that they paid Rs. 9. 00 to the petitioner at the boarding point itself. Having regard to all the facts and circumstances, the Labour Court observed that the punishment imposed by the management is not disproportionate requiring any interference in exercise of its jurisdiction under Section 11-A of the industrial Disputes Act, 1947. In my considered opinion, the view taken by the labour Court does not suffer from any error whatsoever. It is not the amount that has any significance. The question is as to whether the petitioner is guilty of any misconduct as-such. Failure to issue tickets after collecting the fare is undoubtedly an irregularity and serious in nature. In the circumstances, this Court cannot take any lenient view and substitute its opinion for that of the Labour Court. The verdict of the labour Court even on the question relating td the proportionality of punishment is based upon the evidence available on record. ( 9 ) IN the circumstances, I do not find any merit in this writ petition and the same shall accordingly stand dismissed. No order as to costs.