JUDGMENT : L. Narasimha Reddy, J. 1. In this batch of writ appeals, common questions of fact and law arise. Hence, they are disposed of through a common order. 2. The 1st appellant has since been reconstituted into various corporate agencies. It issued B.P.Ms.No.36, dated 18.05.1997, providing for absortion of contract labour, as a step to comply with the requirements under the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970 (for short the Act). The 2nd respondent in the respective writ petitions (for short the respondents), have been extended the benefit of absorption on the basis of certificates, issued to them by the Contractor and counter-signed by the Engineer, in the year 2000. 3. Charge sheets were served upon the respondents on 03.02.2001, alleging that the service certificates relied upon by them are not true and genuine. They submitted explanations, and not satisfied with the same, the appellants directed departmental enquiry. The Enquiry Officer submitted a report, dated 24.01.2002, holding that the charges against the respondents are not proved. However, the disciplinary authority issued a show cause notice, dated 20.05.2002, to the respondents, requiring them to show cause as to why a different view be, not taken. After receiving explanation from the respondents, the disciplinary authority, the 3rd appellant, passed an order, dated 03.06.2003, removing the respondents from service. 4. The respondents filed I.D.No.244 of 2003 and batch, before the Labour Court, Anatapur, challenging the orders of removal. Through its individual awards, dated 07.09.2007, the Labour Court has set aside the orders of removal and directed reinstatement of the respondents into service. However, the relief of back wages was denied to them. The appellants filed W.P.Nos.7123 of 2008 and batch before this Court challenging the awards passed in favour of the respective respondents. Learned Single Judge dismissed W.P.No.7123 of 2008 through a detailed judgment. Following the same, other writ petitions were dismissed. Hence, this batch of writ appeals. 5. Sri G.Vidyasagar, learned Senior Counsel for the appellants, submits that though the Enquiry Officer held that the charges are not proved, the 3rd appellant issued show cause notices to the respondents and differed with the findings, recorded by the Enquiry Officer, and thereafter, imposed punishment. Following the same, other writ petitions were dismissed. Hence, this batch of writ appeals. 5. Sri G.Vidyasagar, learned Senior Counsel for the appellants, submits that though the Enquiry Officer held that the charges are not proved, the 3rd appellant issued show cause notices to the respondents and differed with the findings, recorded by the Enquiry Officer, and thereafter, imposed punishment. Learned Senior Counsel submits that the Labour Court did not even take into account, the fact that the basis for imposing punishment on the respondents was the findings recorded by the 3rd appellant and it was not even held that the findings recorded by the 3rd appellant are not correct. He submits that simply by making reference to the findings recorded by the Enquiry Officer, the Labour Court granted the relief; and though this serious aspect was urged before the learned Single Judge, he has chosen to re-appreciate the evidence on record, as if the matter is before the Labour Court. He contends that the circumstances under which a Labour Court, on the one hand, and the High Court, on the other hand, can interfere with the findings recorded by the Enquiry Officer, or the disciplinary authority, as the case may be, are substantially different and the learned Single Judge was not justified in dismissing the writ petitions. 6. Sri M.Pandu Ranga Rao, learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, submits that though the Labour Court did not deal with the findings of the 3rd appellant specifically, the learned Single Judge perused the entire record, including the depositions of the witnesses in the domestic enquiry and has arrived at just and proper conclusion. He contends that the 3rd appellant has relied upon the material gathered during the preliminary enquiry for reversing the findings of the Enquiry Officer. 7. The respondents came to be employed under a scheme, restricted to the contract labour. The B.P.Ms.No.36 provided for the absorption of the contract labour, irrespective of the nature of their engagement. They were subjected to interview and after verification of the certificates, they have been employed. Sometime thereafter, the appellants wanted to verify the legality and correctness of the appointment of the respondents. Show cause notices were issued and the matter was examined in detail, with reference to the explanation. Since the explanation was not found to be satisfactory, departmental enquiry was held. Sometime thereafter, the appellants wanted to verify the legality and correctness of the appointment of the respondents. Show cause notices were issued and the matter was examined in detail, with reference to the explanation. Since the explanation was not found to be satisfactory, departmental enquiry was held. The Enquiry Officer held that the charges are not proved, since the Contractor, who issued the certificate, is a reputed person, and the failure on his part to submit the record, cannot be said to be material. The 3rd appellant, however, differed with the findings by observing that it is only when a certificate is issued based upon the record, that the benefit under B.P.Ms.No.36, dated 18.05.1997, can be extended. Ultimately, orders of removal were passed. 8. The Labour Court does have the power to differ with the findings recorded in the course of domestic enquiry. In the instant case, the findings in the domestic enquiry are no doubt, in favour of the employees, i.e. the respondents. However, the disciplinary authority differed with the same and held that the charges are proved. Therefore, the attention of the Labour Court, ought to have focussed on the findings recorded by the disciplinary authority i.e. the 3rd appellant. The Labour Court, however, did not touch that aspect at all. 9. Learned Single Judge has, no doubt, undertaken extensive discussion, with reference to the depositions and other material that constituted part of the record of domestic enquiry. However, that is not at all permissible in a writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. It hardly needs any emphasis that the parameters for adjudication of matters by the Labour Court, on the one hand, and the High Court, on the other hand, are substantially different. Being the last forum on facts, the Labour Court has the liberty to re-appreciate the evidence, and to arrive at its own conclusions, of course, guided by the principles that are relevant in this behalf. In a writ petition, however, the scope of interference is substantially restricted. It is only when the decision making process has suffered any serious dent, or whether the order under challenge is patently perverse or not based on no evidence, that there would be scope for judicial review. In a writ petition, however, the scope of interference is substantially restricted. It is only when the decision making process has suffered any serious dent, or whether the order under challenge is patently perverse or not based on no evidence, that there would be scope for judicial review. If the finding in a writ petition is that the Labour Court did not pass the award in accordance with law, and has committed a patent illegality, the best, if not the only course, would be to remand the matter to the Labour Court. The High Court cannot take upon itself, the functions of the Labour Court. 10. We, therefore, allow the writ appeals and set aside the orders passed in the respective writ petitions. The writ petitions are partly allowed by setting aside the respective awards passed by the Labour Court, for the limited purpose of remanding the matter to it, for fresh consideration and disposal, leaving every aspect in the I.D. open. There shall be no order as to costs. 11. The miscellaneous petitions filed in these writ appeals shall also stand disposed of.