G. BIKSHAPATHY, J. ( 1 ) THIS appeal is directed against the judgment of the learned Single Judge in w. P. No. 26765 of 2001, dated 31-12-2001 confirming the award passed by the tribunal in I. D. No. lll of l999. ( 2 ) THE petitioner is the appellant. He was a Conductor employed in A. P. S. R. T. C. On 24-1-1988, bus was checked by the inspecting staff and then it was found that he issued un connected tickets to two passengers at the rate of Rs. 2. 50 paise each. Apart from that, he was also found having 94 unconnected tickets. Therefore, charge-sheet was issued and enquiry was conducted and ultimately, he was removed from service. ( 3 ) THEREUPON, he raised an industrial dispute in I. D. No. lll of 1999 before the labour Court. The counsel for the appellant filed a memo before the Labour Court stating that he is not challenging the enquiry proceedings and he was only inclined to argue on the quantum of punishment under section 11 (A) of the Industrial Disputes Act. Accordingly, the Labour Court, without going into the validity or otherwise of the enquiry conducted in respect of charges framed against the appellant, considered the matter under Section 11 (A) of the Act and found that the acts of indiscipline complained against the appellant, amounts to misappropriation of funds, and, therefore, held that the punishment of removal was quite legal and justified, and, accordingly, passed an award dated 16-7-2001. ( 4 ) THE appellant filed the writ petition before this Court. The learned Single Judge dismissed the same on the ground that when once he filed a memo stating that he was not questioning the validity or otherwise of the domestic enquiry and the finding thereon, it is not open for him to reagitate the same before this Court, and, thus refused to allow the appellant to raise that contention. The learned single Judge also found that the Labour Court exercised discretion in it under Section 10 (A) of the act and found that the punishment imposed is quite proper and appropriate and he was not inclined to interfere with the punishment awarded to the appellant, and, accordingly, dismissed the petition. Against the said order, the present appeal has been preferred. Against the said order, the present appeal has been preferred. ( 5 ) THE learned counsel for the appellant, however, submits that the memo filed by the counsel for the appellant, therein the Labour court, cannot amount to waiver of the legal right of the appellant. He submits that such memo was filed without his knowledge and consent, and therefore, the Labour Court ought to have gone into the validity of the enquiry and that the Labour Court committed error. In this regard, he relies on the judgment of the Supreme Court reported in Union of India v. Wing Commander t. Parthasarathy. He also submits that the punishment as awarded by the respondent- corporation, is highly excessive and disproportionate to the gravity of misconduct alleged to have been committed by the appellant. ( 6 ) AS far as the waiver of right is concerned, it has to be noted that memo was admittedly filed by the counsel for the appellant clearly stating that the appellant did not want to challenge the domestic enquiry proceedings and finding thereon. It is the case of the appellant that he never instructed his counsel to file a memo before the Labour Court. ( 7 ) WE are not inclined to allow the appellant to raise such contention in as much there is no whisper as to the said fact in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition and such issue was not argued before the learned single Judge. Moreover, nothing prevented the appellant to contest the domestic enquiry proceedings in accordance with the rules. This would not amount to waiver of right. On the other hand, he failed to exercise the right that was available to him. The judgment of the supreme Court does not apply to the facts of the case on hand. Before the Supreme Court, the validity of resignation was under adjudication. The Supreme Court has observed that a substantive legal right cannot be denied merely on the basis of any policy decision of the Government or certificate issued by him acknowledging a particular position, which has no legal sanctity. ( 8 ) IN the instant case it is not the case of the appellant that he was denied his legal right. On the other hand, he failed to exercise the right that was available to him. ( 8 ) IN the instant case it is not the case of the appellant that he was denied his legal right. On the other hand, he failed to exercise the right that was available to him. ( 9 ) UNDER these circumstances, we do not find any ground to interfere with the impugned order. ( 10 ) ACCORDINGLY, this writ appeal is dismissed. No costs.