JUDGMENT : MUNISHWAR NATH BHANDARI, J. By this appeal, a challenge has been made to the order dated 9th October, 2017 passed by learned Single Judge. The order aforesaid was passed on a writ petition preferred by petitioner-non-appellant to challenge the award dated 27th November, 2001 passed by the Labour Court. The award of the Labour Court is on a reference of a dispute against dismissal of petitioner-non-appellant from service vide order dated 31st May, 1994. Brief facts of the case: 2. The petitioner-non-appellant, while holding the post of Driver, was found carrying 29 passengers without tickets on the inspection of bus at Jaipur-Kota route. He was handed over the charge of the bus by Kota Depot after issuing tickets to 3 passengers. The petitioner-non-appellant took 29 other passengers on the way. When the bus was checked at Chaksu (40 km. prior to Jaipur), 29 passengers were found without tickets and fare from them had been collected by the non-appellant. The amount of Rs. 1088.50 was recovered from the pocket of the driver. It was collected from 29 passengers without issuing tickets. The bus was operated by the driver without a conductor, as per the Policy of the RSRTC at the given time. 3. A departmental inquiry was conducted after serving charge sheet on the petitioner-non-appellant. The charges were found proved in the inquiry thus an order of dismissal from service was passed. 4. The appellant-Corporation filed an application under Section 33 (2) (b) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short “the Act of 1947”) for seeking approval of the order of punishment of dismissal from service. The Industrial Tribunal accepted the approval application vide order dated 2nd March, 1996. It was after holding inquiry to be unfair thus parties were allowed to adduce the evidence to prove and defend the charge before the Industrial Tribunal. After evidence of the parties, the Industrial Tribunal found charges to be proved. The approval application was thus accepted. 5. After approval of the order of dismissal from service, the petitioner-non-appellant raised a dispute, which was referred to the Labour Court for its adjudication. The Labour Court considered fairness of inquiry and passed an order on 3rd May, 1999 holding it to be unfair. The appellant-Corporation was allowed to lead evidence to prove the charges. Both the parties led their evidence. The Labour Court considered fairness of inquiry and passed an order on 3rd May, 1999 holding it to be unfair. The appellant-Corporation was allowed to lead evidence to prove the charges. Both the parties led their evidence. After evidence, learned Labour Court found charges as proved and answered the reference against the workman and in favour of the Corporation. A detailed discussion of the evidence was made by the Labour Court before recording finding of facts. It has been interfered by learned Single Judge thus present appeal. Arguments of the appellant: 6. Learned counsel for appellant-Corporation submits that facts on record show that after holding inquiry, when charges were found proved, punishment of dismissal from service was inflicted. The application under Section 33 (2) (b) of the Act of 1947 was filed thereupon to seek approval of the order of dismissal from service. It was for the reason that a matter was pending before the Industrial Tribunal though the workman herein was not directly connected with dispute therein, however, approval of punishment of dismissal from service was required as per Section 33 (2)(b) of the Act of 1947. The Industrial Tribunal, while considering the application under Section 33 (2) (b) of the Act of 1947, did not find inquiry to be fair thus parties were allowed to lead evidence. After evidence, it found charges as proved, accordingly, the approval application was allowed. 7. Once finding on proof of charges was recorded by the Industrial Tribunal and was not challenged, it could not have been subjected to finding at the subsequent stage by the Labour Court. In fact, after approval of the order of punishment under Section 33 (2) (b) of the Act of 1947, only scope available with the Labour Court was to see whether punishment is proportionate to the misconduct. In the instant case, the Labour Court considered fairness of inquiry and held it to be unfair. It allowed the parties to lead evidence and, thereupon, it again found charges as proved though it was earlier found proved by the Industrial Tribunal on an application under Section 33 (2) (b) of the Act of 1947. The procedure adopted by the Labour Court while adjudicating the reference was not proper. In any case, the appellant - Corporation, having participated in the proceedings and led evidence, the issue may not be open for it. The procedure adopted by the Labour Court while adjudicating the reference was not proper. In any case, the appellant - Corporation, having participated in the proceedings and led evidence, the issue may not be open for it. Learned Single Judge was not having jurisdiction to re-appreciate the finding of fact when there was no perversity therein. 8. The finding on the charges attained finality with the order of Industrial Tribunal under Sec. 33 (2) (b) of the Act of 1947 because it was not challenged by the work man. The application under Section 33 (2) (b) of the Act of 1947 was not decided after finding out as to whether prima facie case is made out but after recording finding of fact on the proof of the charge after holding inquiry to be unfair. The Labour Court, while adjudicating the reference, could not have taken a different view, resulting in not only judicial discipline but contradictory finding on the same facts and between the same parties. 9. Learned Single Judge persuaded by the post held by the workman without considering that the Corporation was operating buses without conductors at the relevant time by giving responsibility to the drivers. They were not authorised to take any passengers on route but to carry only those passengers who were given tickets at the Depot. In the instant case, three; passengers were given tickets and boarded the bus at Kota. The driver allowed 29 additional passengers on the way. On inspection Of bus, they were found without tickets and fare from them had been collected by the non-appellant. The said amount of fare was recovered from the pocket of petitioner-non-appellant. 10. Learned Single Judge has mainly relied on the statement of Ramavtar Agarwal, said to be an independent witness though was not produced by the workman earlier before the Industrial Tribunal where adjudication on application under Section 33 (2) (b) of the Act of 1947 was made. Learned Single Judge also relied on the statement of Babulal Sharma, who is said to have given Rs. 1088/-, so recovered from the pocket of work man. 11. It is also shown that the Industrial Tribunal earlier did not find the petitioner-non-appellant to be carrying passengers without tickets but held him guilty for his failure to deposit the amount. Learned Single Judge also relied on the statement of Babulal Sharma, who is said to have given Rs. 1088/-, so recovered from the pocket of work man. 11. It is also shown that the Industrial Tribunal earlier did not find the petitioner-non-appellant to be carrying passengers without tickets but held him guilty for his failure to deposit the amount. If the fact aforesaid is also accepted then recovery of fare from the passengers by the petitioner-non-appellant gets established thus Rs. 1088/- was not given by Babulal Sharma. Contrary to the aforesaid, learned Single Judge recorded finding to hold that aforesaid amount was given by Babulal Sharma. If that was so, then 29 passengers were travelling without tickets and without collection of fare. Learned Single Judge has recorded finding in contradiction. Learned Single Judge, otherwise, ignored the evidence of Corporation thus finding recorded by the learned Single Judge needs interference. The order is in ignorance of limited jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and not of appellate authority to interfere in finding of fact. 12. The appeal has been opposed by learned counsel for petitioner-non-appellant-workman. It is submitted that the Labour Court, while adjudicating the reference, had ignored evidence of two material witnesses thus learned Single Judge has rightly caused interference after referring statements of those witnesses. It is moreso when witnesses were independent and had proved that no passenger was travelling without ticket and amount of Rs. 1088/-, lying in the pocket of driver, was given by Babulal Sharma. In view of the above, the finding recorded by learned Single Judge may not be interfered. 13. It is also stated that even if approval of the order of punishment was given by the Industrial Tribunal under Section 33 (2) (b) of the Act of 1947, the Labour Court was within its jurisdiction to adjudicate the matter afresh on a reference of the dispute thus holding inquiry to be unfair and allowing the parties to lead evidence is not illegal. He has given a reference of the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Delhi Transport Corporation v. Surendra Pal, Civil Appeal Nos. 2323-2324, decided vide order dated 16th October, 2014. A prayer is, accordingly, made to dismiss the appeal. 14. We have considered the rival submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 15. 2323-2324, decided vide order dated 16th October, 2014. A prayer is, accordingly, made to dismiss the appeal. 14. We have considered the rival submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 15. The facts narrated by the parties show that prior to the reference of dispute to the Labour Court, the matter was adjudicated by the Industrial Tribunal on an application under Section 33 (2) (b) of the Act of 1947. The approval of the order of punishment was given after holding inquiry to be unfair. It is after permitting the parties to lead evidence. After marshalling the evidence, the Industrial Tribunal found charges as proved. Once charges were found proved after appreciation of evidence led before it, could not have been subjected to further scrutiny in the subsequent proceedings on reference under Section 10 of the Act of 1947. It is not only for the reason that any finding contrary to the earlier would not only result in judicial indiscipline but serious consequences. It can be understood by the following example: 16. If the finding of fact recorded on the approval application under Section 33 (2) (b) of the Act of 1947 is challenged by either of the party before the High Court and is taken even to Apex Court and is upheld, subsequent finding of the Labour Court on reference under Section 10 of the Act of 1947 contrary to what has been recorded on the approval application between the same parties, would mean, nullifying the order of the Apex Court. It is in a case where earlier Industrial Tribunal held inquiry to be unfair and allowed the parties to lead evidence. It then recorded finding on the charges based on the evidence led before it thus approval application was not decided after holding inquiry to be fair and seen only the prima facie case there upon. 17. While adjudicating the application under Section 33 (2) (b) of the Act of 1947, the Labour Court or the Industrial Tribunal considers fairness of inquiry. It can come to the conclusion that inquiry is fair or unfair. In case, inquiry is found to be fair, it is to find, whether a prima facie case is made out or not. If prima facie proof is found, the approval can be granted. This is one possibility of adjudication. It can come to the conclusion that inquiry is fair or unfair. In case, inquiry is found to be fair, it is to find, whether a prima facie case is made out or not. If prima facie proof is found, the approval can be granted. This is one possibility of adjudication. In a case, where inquiry is declared unfair, the Industrial Tribunal or the Labour Court adjudicating the application under Section 33 (2) (b) of the Act of 1947, can allow the parties to lead evidence. After evidence, it will record its finding whether charge is proved or not. In that case, it is not as to whether prima facie case is made out or not. If charge is found proved then approval of the order of punishment would be given. It is after recording finding of fact on the material produced by both the parties, as has happened in this case. 18. The work man, there upon, is at liberty to challenge order granting approval before the High Court and if writ petition is dismissed then before the Division Bench and finally to the Apex Court. In a case, where challenge to the finding of fact recorded by the Labour Court or the Industrial Tribunal on an application under Section 33 (2) (b) of the Act of 1947 is upheld upto the Apex Court then it would not be open for the courts subsequently on reference under Section 10 of the Act of 1947 to record their finding again to find out whether charges are proved or not. It would, however, be not in a case where inquiry was held fair thus the court had seen only a prima facie case while adjudicating the application under Section 33 (2) (b) of the Act of 1947 after the order of punishment. 19. In case of first category where inquiry is found unfair on the application under Section 33 (2) (b) of the Act of 1947 and court causes inquiry thereupon with finding proof of charge, if the other courts record finding on the proof of charge contrary to earlier finding on the approval application then would result in nullifying the orders of the High Courts and the Apex Courts between the same parties and on the same material. Unfortunately, the aforesaid aspect was not raised before the Apex Court in the case of Surendra Pal (supra). 20. Unfortunately, the aforesaid aspect was not raised before the Apex Court in the case of Surendra Pal (supra). 20. The issue before the Apex Court, in the case of Surendra Pal (supra), was in reference to doctrine of res judicata. It was not applicable on the facts of that case. Therein, inquiry was not found unfair on the approval application under Section 33 (2) (b) of the Act of 1947. In view of the above, the earlier finding was only as to whether a prima facie case is made out or not. 21. We are of the firm opinion that after approval of the punishment, jurisdiction of courts on a reference remains quite limited. It is to see whether punishment is proportionate or not if earlier parties were allowed to lead evidence after holding inquiry to be unfair followed by finding about proof of the charge. It would, however, not apply if inquiry was held to be fair thus only a prima facie case was seen on an application u/S. 33 (2)(b) of the Act of 1947. Therein, the court can see as to whether evidence exists to prove charge. 22. The aforesaid is only one aspect of the matter. Coming to the facts of this case, the award of the Labour Court shows that the Corporation could prove charges by leading evidence. The finding of fact recorded by the Labour Court has not been held to be perverse. Learned Single Judge yet caused interference while exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in ignorance of the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Sadhna Lodh v. National Insurance Co. Ltd., reported in (2003) 3 SCC 524 . Para No. 7 of the aforesaid judgment is quoted hereunder for ready reference: “7. The supervisory jurisdiction conferred on the High Courts under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is confined only to see whether an inferior court or tribunal has proceeded within its parameters and not to correct an error apparent on the face of the record, much less of an error of law. In exercising the supervisory power under Article 227 of the Constitution, the High Court does not act as an appellate Court or the tribunal. In exercising the supervisory power under Article 227 of the Constitution, the High Court does not act as an appellate Court or the tribunal. It is also not permissible to a High Court on a petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution to review or re-weigh the evidence upon which the inferior court or tribunal purports to have passed the order or to correct errors of law in the decision. 23. The jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is very limited. If the evidence led by the Corporation is looked into, Shri Ramesh Tiwari, Assistant Transport Inspector had stated about misconduct of the workman. He had referred the Bus Inspection Report as well as Way-Bill prepared on the spot. The remarks about 29 passengers was recorded in the Way-Bill as well as in the Bus Checking Report. The log-sheet of the driver was also checked and remarks for carrying passengers without tickets was made. The petitioner-non-appellant had signed it in acceptance of the remarks. The description of the passengers was given in the following terms : ^^7 ;k=h t;iqj&dksVk nj 61-00 ¾ 427-00 5 ;k=h t;iqj&nsoyh nj 38-00 ¾ 190-00 5 ;k=h t;iqj&cwanh nj 52-00 ¾ 260-00 4 ;k=h t;iqj&Vksad nj 25-00 ¾ 100-00 5 ;k=h t;iqj&fuokb nj 17-50 ¾ 87-50 3 ;k=h t;iqj&pkdlw nj 8-00 ¾ 8-00 1088-50 :i;s** 24. The statements of witnesses produced by the Corporation before the Labour Court have not been considered by learned Single Judge while causing interference in the finding. Those witnesses were extensively cross-examined by the petitioner-non-appellant. The witnesses categorically stated that on inspection, 32 passengers in the bus were found and, out of which, 29 passengers were travelling without tickets. 25. Learned Single Judge has even ignored the statement of Suresh Chandra Sharma, produced by the Corporation, to prove the charges. He had corroborated the evidence of the other witnesses. The Corporation even produced log-sheet where remarks for carrying 29 passengers without tickets was made. The said document was signed by the petitioner-non-appellant. The Bus Checking Report also confirms the allegation wherein description of the passengers travelling without tickets was given. The report was again signed by the petitioner-non-appellant. 26. Learned Single Judge has not considered those documents. It has considered only two witnesses produced by the workman and the statement of petitioner-non-appellant himself. The said document was signed by the petitioner-non-appellant. The Bus Checking Report also confirms the allegation wherein description of the passengers travelling without tickets was given. The report was again signed by the petitioner-non-appellant. 26. Learned Single Judge has not considered those documents. It has considered only two witnesses produced by the workman and the statement of petitioner-non-appellant himself. The non-appellant did not refuse his signature on the log-sheet and Bus Checking Report but said to be under duress. The non-appellant never sent a protest against it, if signatures were taken under duress. This itself shows that having 29 passengers without tickets, he had signed the documents. 27. The statement of one Babulal Sharma has been considered by learned Single Judge treating him to be independent witness. He said to have given Rs. 1088/- to the non-appellant for purchase of “Saree”. The said witness was not earlier produced before the Industrial Tribunal while adjudicating the application under Section 33 (2) (b) of the Act of 1947. Learned Single Judge failed to consider this aspect and even while relying on the statement of Babulal Sharma, it failed to consider his cross-examination. He has stated about signature taken on the affidavit prepared by his Advocate for evidence to support the petitioner-non-appellant. He also admitted that petitioner-non-appellant is not his relative. It is also stated that amount of Rs. 1088/- was given to the petitioner-non-appellant prior to 14th May, 1993 and not on the date of incidence i.e. 30th April, 1993. This aspect has been ignored by learned Single Judge while recording finding that amount recovered from the non-appellant was not of the fare charged from the passengers but was given by Babulal Sharma, ignoring the difference of days. If the amount was given by Babulal Sharma then all the passengers were travelling without tickets. Learned Single Judge, however, found no passenger without ticket in reference to the earlier finding of the Industrial Tribunal. It is in ignorance of the fact that therein it was found that amount of Rs. 1088.50 was of fare and failure of the workman was for not depositing it with the Corporation. The contradictory finding has been recorded. It was, otherwise, required to consider the evidence of both the parties and not only of one. 28. The statement of Ramavtar Agarwal has also been considered by learned Single Judge but his cross-examination has been ignored. 1088.50 was of fare and failure of the workman was for not depositing it with the Corporation. The contradictory finding has been recorded. It was, otherwise, required to consider the evidence of both the parties and not only of one. 28. The statement of Ramavtar Agarwal has also been considered by learned Single Judge but his cross-examination has been ignored. Thus, finding recorded by learned Single Judge needs interference. The impugned order passed by learned Single Judge is, accordingly, set aside. The appeal is allowed with the aforesaid.