Judgment : 1. This petition is directed against the award dated 16-4-2005 passed by the Labour Court, Gulbarga in KID No. 558 of 2000. 2. The facts of the case in brief are that the petitioner was working as a conductor in the services of the respondent. On findings that entries in certain waybills are altered by erasing the earlier entries therein with a chemical solution, the respondent-Management issued the articles of charges. The departmental enquiry indicated the petitioner of the charges. The respondent, by its order dated 25-7-2000 dismissed the petitioner from its service. Aggrieved by his dismissal, the petitioner presented a petition in the Labour Court invoking Section 10(4-A) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The Labour Court set aside the dismissal order, directed his reinstatement without back wages. Agitating his right of back wages, the petitioner filed the writ petition. The respondent-Management also filed the writ petition aggrieved by the award in its entirety. This Court, by its order dated 2-2-2005 dismissed the petitioner’s petition and allowed the respondent’s petition by referring the matter back to the Labour Court for its re-decision. The Labour Court passed the award dated 16-4-2005 rejecting the petitioner’s petition. Aggrieved by the said award, this petition is instituted. 3. Sri Harshavardhan R. Malipatil, the learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the Labour Court ought to have held that the domestic enquiry is not fair and proper. He also submits that the Government Examiner to whom the waybills were referred for the expert opinion is not examined as one of the witnesses before the Labour Court. He submits that changing as many as 150 entries is most improbable and perhaps humanly impossible. He also submits that the charges levelled against the petitioner are extremely vague. The learned Counsel also submits that no material is placed before the Labour Court regarding the 19 misconducts in the past. 4. Sri Vijapur, the learned Counsel for the respondent prays for the dismissal of the petition by confirming the impugned award. He has relied on the Division Bench judgment of this Court in the case of H.K. Shekar v. Karnataka State road Corporation, Bangalore (2009(5) Kar. L.J. 155 (DB) : 2009(4) AIR Kar. R. 124 (DB)), wherein it is held that the misconduct on the part of the conductor leading to loss of revenue to the Corporation is a serious matter. He has relied on the Division Bench judgment of this Court in the case of H.K. Shekar v. Karnataka State road Corporation, Bangalore (2009(5) Kar. L.J. 155 (DB) : 2009(4) AIR Kar. R. 124 (DB)), wherein it is held that the misconduct on the part of the conductor leading to loss of revenue to the Corporation is a serious matter. The punishment of dismissal for such a misconduct is not excessive. He has also relied on this Court’s decision in the case of P. Channabasavaiah v The Divisional Controller, Karnataka State Board Transport Corporation, Bangalore (2009(5) Kar. L.J. 172 (DB) : 2009(4) AIR Kar. R. 238 (DB)), wherein the punishment of dismissal was held to be not disproportionate in case where it is found that the conductor is guilty of not issuing the tickets to passengers and of carrying the ticketless passengers. 5. The learned Counsel also brings to my notice the Apex Court’s judgment in the case of Uttar Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation v Vinod Kumar ( (2008)1 SCC 115 : 2007 AIR SCW 7649), wherein it is held that if the workman does not challenge the legality or fairness of the enquiry proceedings, it is not open to the Labour Court to examine the findings of the Enquiry Officer and hold that the charges is not proved. 6. On the issue of whether the domestic enquiry held against the petitioner is fair and proper, his learned Counsel conceded to its validity on 15-3-2001, as is evident from Para 4 of the impugned award. When the petitioner’s side has conceded to the validity of the domestic enquiry, the question of the Labour Court or this Court holding that the domestic enquiry is not proper and fair would not arise at all. 7. On the Government Examiner not being examined before the Labour Court or the respondent not adducing any evidence regarding the petitioner’s indictment in as many as 19 misconducts in the past, the petitioner’s case is not strengthened in any way because, strict rules of evidence are not applicablr in the domestic enquiry proceedings, as held by the Supreme Court in the case of Divisional Controller, Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation (North-West Karnataka Road Transport Corporation), Hubli v A.T. Mane (2004(6) Kar. LJ. 493 (SC) : AIR 2004 SC 4761 : (2005)3 SCC 254 : 2004 AIR SCW 5427 : 2004-III-LLJ-1074 (SC)). 8. LJ. 493 (SC) : AIR 2004 SC 4761 : (2005)3 SCC 254 : 2004 AIR SCW 5427 : 2004-III-LLJ-1074 (SC)). 8. My perusal of the articles of charges as extracted in the impugned order reveals that the charge does not suffer from any vagueness as such. Whether 150 entries are tampered with, is something which need not be re-appreciated in the proceedings under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The power under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is exercisable only for ensuring that the subordinate Courts and Tribunals function within the limits of their authority. This Court cannot act as a Court of appeal for correcting the mere errors of facts while considering the petition under the Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 9. On the Enquiry Officer holding that the charges against the petitioner are proved and on the petitioner conceding that the domestic enquiry proceedings are fair and proper, the issue of whether or not ha has committed the misconduct cannot be re-agitated. In taking this view, I am fortified by the Supreme Court’s decision in the case of Uttar Pradesh Road Transport Corporation. 10. The petitioner’s committing 19 misconducts in the past coupled with the large scale tampering with the entries in the waybills has caused the loss of confidence or faith that becomes a prime factor while imposing the punishment. No misplaced sympathy can be shown in a case of this nature. 11. For all the aforesaid reasons, I dismiss this petition. No order as to costs.