JUDGMENT S.R. Nayak, J.--The management feeling aggrieved by the order of learned Single Judge dated 9.1.2002 in W.P. No. 37825 of 1997 has come up with this writ appeal. The Respondent while serving as Driver in the establishment of the Appellant/company, a charge memo was issued to him alleging that Respondent without maintaining safe distance from a KSRTC bus which was going ahead, drove the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner and thereby, caused the accident resulting in injuries to as many as 19 passengers. The management in order to establish the charge against the delinquent, examined only one passenger M.W.2. The said witness in his evidence stated that the delinquent in an attempt to overtake the KSRTC bus caused the accident. Learned Industrial Judge finding that the evidence of M.W.2 could not prove the charge specifically levelled against the delinquent has opined that the charge is not proved. When the said finding was called in question in judicial review under Article 226, learned Single Judge did not find any perversity in the factual finding and the result is dismissal of the writ petition. 2. We have heard learned Standing Counsel for the Management and Sri K. Subba Rao, learned Senior Counsel for delinquent workman. We have perused the award of Labour Court as well as order of learned Single Judge. The Industrial Court in Para 7 has specifically dealt with the evidence adduced by management and has opined that the evidence of M.W.2 cannot be a proof to bring home the charge levelled against the delinquent workman. It needs to be noticed that the specific charge against delinquent was that he without maintaining necessary and safe distance from a KSRTC bus which was going ahead drove the vehicle behind it and that resulted in accident. No iota of evidence is produced by Management to prove that specific charge. The evidence of M.W.2 is of no help to Management to sustain that charge. Be that as it may, this Court under Article 226 cannot assume the role of an appellate authority and reappreciate the evidence and see whether factual finding recorded by the Labour Court is based on sufficient evidence or not. The only thing to be seen by this Court is whether the factual finding recorded by the Labour Court is based on some substantive legal evidence or not. The only thing to be seen by this Court is whether the factual finding recorded by the Labour Court is based on some substantive legal evidence or not. Having heard learned Counsel for parties, we are fully satisfied that the factual finding recorded by the Labour Court cannot be said to be perverse. No ground is made out for interference. Writ appeal is devoid of merit and it is accordingly dismissed with no order as to costs.