G. C. BHARUKA, J. ( 1 ) THE question involved herein is whether the order of the learned single Juc'ge holding that the impugned award of the Labour Court interfering with the finding of the Disciplinary Authority on proof of misconduct, suffered from perversity and error of record? ( 2 ) THE appellant before us was working as a conductor with the respondent-Bangalore Metropolitan Transport Corporation (in short, the 'corporation'), On 5-7-1992, the Bus No. 1054 on route Shivajinagar to banaswadi (300/3) in which the appellant was on duty, was checked by the checking squad. The checking revealed that out of 28 passengers travelling in the bus, 19 passengers did not have any ticket with them. On enquiry from the passengers, it further revealed that the appellant- conductor despite collection of fare at the rate of Rs. 1. 25 each from 10 passengers and at the rate of Rs. 1. 75 each from 9 passengers did not issue tickets to them. It was also found that the appellant had failed to close the waybill despite the bus having reached Stage No. 3. Accordingly, a charge memo was issued and disciplinary proceedings were initiated against the appellant. The Disciplinary Authority holding that the charges levelled against the appellant having been duly proved, dismissed him from service. ( 3 ) THE appellant being aggrieved by the order of the Disciplinary authority, raised an industrial dispute under Section 10 (4-A) of the Industrial disputes Act, 1947 (in short, the 'act' ). The Labour Court found that the enquiry held by the Corporation to be fair and proper. Still, under the guise of re-appreciation of evidence lead before the Disciplinary Authority, the Labour Court held that the Corporation had failed to establish the charges levelled against the appellant. Consequently, it directed the corporation to reinstate the appellant with 30% back wages from the date of dismissal till the date of reinstatement. ( 4 ) THE correctness of the above award of the Labour Court was assailed by the Corporation by filing a writ petition. The learned Single judge, on hearing the Counsels appearing for both the parties found that the reasoning given by the Labour Court is perverse and accordingly, quashed the award and restored the punishment of dismissal imposed by the Disciplinary Authority. ( 5 ) THIS is why the present intra-Court appeal has been preferred by the appellant-workman. The learned Single judge, on hearing the Counsels appearing for both the parties found that the reasoning given by the Labour Court is perverse and accordingly, quashed the award and restored the punishment of dismissal imposed by the Disciplinary Authority. ( 5 ) THIS is why the present intra-Court appeal has been preferred by the appellant-workman. ( 6 ) SOME of the foundational facts in respect of which there is no dispute between the parties may be noticed at the threshold. The Corporation provides transport facilities in the Bangalore Metropolitan Area. The appellant had been serving as a conductor in the Corporation. On 5-7-1992 at early hours, he was on duty in Bus No, 1054 on Route 300/3 from Shivajinagar to Banaswadi. On this route, Maruthisevanagara is designated as Stage No. 3 and Banaswadi as Stage No. 4. It is not in dispute that a checking team comprised of Sri KM. Venkatareddy and sri Aslam Pasha, both Traffic Inspectors, boarded the vehicle at Stage no. 3, i. e. , Maruthisevanagara and held a checking. This checking revealed that there were altogether 28 passengers in the bus, but only 9 passengers had the tickets. Out of the remaining 19 passengers, 10 were found to be travelling from Shivajinagar to Maruthisevanagara bus stop i. e. , Stage Nos. 1 to 3 and the remaining 9 passengers were found to be travelling from Shivajinagar to Banaswadi, Stage Nos. 1 to 4. The fare for travelling from Stage Nos. 1 to 3 was Rs. 1. 25 and the fare for travelling from Stage Nos. 1 to 4 was Rs. 1. 75. On being enquired from the passengers travelling without tickets by t he Traffic Inspectors, they stated that despite collecting fare from them the conductor (appellant) failed to issue tickets to them. The Traffic inspectors recorded their statements to the said effect in the prescribed form, which had been marked as Exhibits M. 2 and M. 2-A. These statements bear the date, place and time of checking, bus number and the name of the conductor. The statement also contains the name of the passenger, the number of passengers and their signature. These statements have been duly countersigned by the appellant who was conducting the bus. According to these statements, despite collection of fare, tickets were not issued to the following passengers:1. The statement also contains the name of the passenger, the number of passengers and their signature. These statements have been duly countersigned by the appellant who was conducting the bus. According to these statements, despite collection of fare, tickets were not issued to the following passengers:1. Abdul Hasan (along with 4 passengers) Shivajinagar Bus station to Banaswadi-amount collected is Rs. 8. 75; 2. Ramachandra (along with 3 passengers) Shivajinagar Bus station to Banaswadi-amount collected is Rs. 7. 00; 3. Harisha (along with 3 passengers) Shivajinagar Bus station to Maruthisevanagar-amount collected is Rs. 4. 00; 4. Rasheed (along with 3 passengers) Shivajinagar Bus station to Maruthisevanagar-amount collected is Rs. 2. 00; 5. Sanjay (along with one passenger) Shivajinagar Bus station to Maruthisevanagar-amount collected is Rs. 2. 00. ( 7 ) THOUGH the genuineness of the above recorded statements was not at all disputed by the appellant either before the Disciplinary Authority or before the Labour Court, but these statements have been discarded by the Labour Court by holding that: (I) the names and addresses of the passengers are not clear; (ii) these statements do not tally with charge No. 2 which says that the tickets to 9 passengers travelling from Stage Nos. 1 to 4 were not issued; (iii) in the waybill, the total number of passengers was shown to be 18. In our opinion, each of the reasons given by the Labour Court suffers from apparent mistakes. The waybill, which was admittedly seized from the appellant at the time of inspection itself clearly shows that at the time of checking, 28 passengers were found. The number of passengers found in the bus also stands fully corroborated from the charge memo served on the appellant immediately on completion of the checking (Ex. D. 1 ). The charge memo has been duly acknowledged by the appellant and as a matter of fact, the original of it was produced by him before the Labour Court. The labour Court says that the carbon copy of the charge memo produced by the Corporation contains some overwritings regarding the number of passengers. We do not know for what purpose and at what stage these over- writings were made. Still, ignoring the carbon copy produced by the corporation, the original copy of the charge memo produced by the appellant himself shows that the total number of passengers found was 28. We do not know for what purpose and at what stage these over- writings were made. Still, ignoring the carbon copy produced by the corporation, the original copy of the charge memo produced by the appellant himself shows that the total number of passengers found was 28. ( 8 ) SO far as the recording of detail names and addresses of the passengers is concerned, the Supreme Court in the case of State of Haryana and Another v Rattan Singh, in an identical situation, has held that even if the statements of passengers are not recorded, it cannot be held to be fatal to the disciplinary proceedings. In para 5 of the judgment, it has been held that ". . . In this case, the Inspector tried to get the statements, but the passengers declined, the psychology of the latter in such circumstances being understandable, although may not be approved, we cannot hold that merely because statements of passengers were not recorded the order that followed was invalid". In the present case, admittedly, statements of passengers were recorded in presence of the appellant and he has duly endorsed those by putting his signature. Moreover, it is quite impracticable to take a view that while checking a city bus where every passenger will be in a hurry to reach his destination, the Checking Inspectors should insist for disclosing their full names and addresses and record them. Therefore, the reasoning given by the Labour Court for discarding the statements of the passengers is ex facie perverse and also suffers from mistakes apparent on the face of the record. ( 9 ) THE other reasons given by the Labour Court for disproving the charge of pilferage by the appellant are equally misdirected. Much has been sought to be made out by the Labour Court from an obvious inadvertent error in putting the date of inspection in the charge memo as 4-7-1992 instead of 5-7-1992. Admittedly, it is not in dispute that the inspection was conducted on 5-7-1992. This fact is clearly borne out from the statements of the passengers, the waybill and other contemporary documents. Even the appellant had not disputed the date of inspection. Therefore, there was a clear inadvertent error in mentioning the date of preparation of the charge memo. Such an error could not have been made a basis for falsifying the charge. This fact is clearly borne out from the statements of the passengers, the waybill and other contemporary documents. Even the appellant had not disputed the date of inspection. Therefore, there was a clear inadvertent error in mentioning the date of preparation of the charge memo. Such an error could not have been made a basis for falsifying the charge. This also reflects the perverse approach of the Labour Court. ( 10 ) THE Supreme Court in the case of State of Haryana, supra, has clearly held that:"the simple point is, was there some evidence or was there no evidence not in the sense of the technical rules governing regular court proceedings but in a fair common sense way as men of understanding and worldly wisdom will accept. Viewed in this way, sufficiency of evidence in proof of the finding by a domestic tribunal is beyond scrutiny. Absence of any evidence in support of a finding is certainly available for the Court to look into because it amounts to an error of law apparent on the record. We find, in this case, that the evidence of Chamanlal, Inspector of the flying squad, is some evidence which has relevance to the charge levelled against the respondent. Therefore, we are unable to hold that the order is invalid on that ground". Viewed from the above perspective, both on the fact and law, the order of the Labour Court has to be held as perverse and suffering from grave error of record. ( 11 ) WE are fully conscious of the fact that in view of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Workmen of Mis. Firestone tyre and Rubber Company of India (Private) Limited v The Management and Others1 (paragraph 32), the Labour Court has now been clothed with the power of re-appreciating the evidence in the domestic enquiry and satisfy itself whether the said evidence relied on by an employer establishes the misconduct alleged against the workman. But from this, it cannot be inferred that in the guise of re-appreciation of evidence the labour Court can reverse the findings arrived in a domestic enquiry by committing error of record coupled with a perverse approach. ( 12 ) IN the present case, the default history sheet of the appellant was there before the Disciplinary Authority as well as the Labour Court (Ex. ( 12 ) IN the present case, the default history sheet of the appellant was there before the Disciplinary Authority as well as the Labour Court (Ex. M. 13) which revealed that the appellant has committed 64 various defaults on earlier occasions and he was subjected to minor penalties. The Supreme Court in a recent judgment in the case of Devendra swamy v Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation2, has held:"the Division Bench of the High Court relied on the decisions of this Court in State of Haryana's case, supra; Uttar Pradesh State road Transport Corporation v Basudeo Chaudhary^ and Uttar pradesh State Road Transport Corporation v Subhash Chandra sharma4, for forming opinion that unless punishment is shock- ingly disproportionate to the charge which has been proved the punishment awarded by the Disciplinary Authority should not be interfered in exercise of power of judicial review. In our opinion, the Division Bench was right in taking the view which it has taken. The opinion formed by the Labour Court that punishment of dismissal imposed by the management on the workman was too harsh and undeserved, was perverse finding and arrived at by. ignoring the material as to previous acts of misconduct and pun- ishments awarded to the appellant brought to the notice of Disci- plinary Authority and the Labour Court. We are also of the opinion that the gravity of charge of misconduct for which the disciplinary proceedings were initiated and which charge was found to be substantiated by the Labour Court seen in the light of previous service record of the appellant fully justified the punish- ment awarded by Disciplinary Authority". ( 13 ) FOR the said reasons, in our considered opinion, the learned Sin- gle Judge cannot be said to have acted in excess of the jurisdiction in quashing the award of the Labour Court. Appeal is therefore dismissed. --- *** --- .