ORDER : This Writ Petition is filed, seeking the following relief: “…..to issue a Writ, Order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Certiorari, calling for all the records in I.D.No. 97 of 2005, dated 18.03.2014, on the file of the 2nd respondent and quash the same and pass such other orders.” 2. Heard Sri Venkata Rama Rao Kota, learned Standing Counsel for petitioners and Sri M. Pitchaiah, learned Counsel for the 1st respondent. 3. The brief facts of the case are that the 1st respondent filed a case in Industrial Dispute L.C.No. 97 of 2005 before the 2nd respondent questioning the oral order of retrenchment dated 13.08.2002 rendered by the petitioners, thereby to reinstate the 1st respondent into service with all full back wages and is entitled for all attendant benefits. The 1st respondent alleged that he received a call letter from the Employment Exchange, Guntur to attend interview for the post of Driver-cum-Messenger at State Bank of India, Narasaraopet ADB and he selected and appointed on 05.02.1974 against permanent vacancy and that one Mr. Peddabbai was appointed as temporary Driver-cum-Messenger and that his services were regularized in 1978, but whereas the 1st respondent was denied the same. The 1st respondent alleged that he discharged his duties till 1980 at Narasaraopet on monthly wages of Rs. 250/- paid to him from petty cash and he was transferred to Sattenapalli Branch. While he was working in Sattenapalli Branch, he availed a loan for purchase of Jeep bearing No. MRD 5667 for the purpose of Bank and opened an SB Account No. 24/7645 and the petitioner bank used to deposit the amount into the said account after deducting installments of loan amount directly from his salary, later he was transferred to Narasaraopet Branch on 23.06.1991, where he worked till 30.04.1997. Later he worked at Peddakurapadu Branch of the Bank. The Bank utilized the services of the 1st respondent to operate jeep and the bank used to pay the amounts by way of Banker’s Cheque till 01.05.1997, on which date his services were terminated. The 1st respondent was not paid salaries as per the scale applicable to the driver, but he was removed from services w.e.f 01.05.1997 without any notice, which is illegal and arbitrary. Hence the 1st respondent questioning the alleged inaction of the petitioners filed a case before the 2nd respondent. 4. The 1st respondent was not paid salaries as per the scale applicable to the driver, but he was removed from services w.e.f 01.05.1997 without any notice, which is illegal and arbitrary. Hence the 1st respondent questioning the alleged inaction of the petitioners filed a case before the 2nd respondent. 4. The petitioners/Bank filed counter by denying all material averments and inter alia contended that the 1st respondent was never engaged as driver and there is no relationship of employer and employee between the 1st respondent and the petitioner bank, therefore questioning the alleged termination does not arise and the 1st respondent was owning Jeep bearing Registration No. AAK 3347 and the same was given on hire to the Bank on rent and the 1st respondent to drive the vehicle and collect the hire charges and the Jeep along with driver was taken on hire during the period 01.01.1995 to 31.03.1997 by the Narasaraopet Branch of SBI and from 01.02.2002 to 08.04.2002 by Achampet Branch and all the necessary vouchers towards the rental charges paid to the services rendered by the 1st respondent were filed before the 2nd respondent. 5. During the trial, the 2nd respondent framed the following points/ issues: 1. Whether there is relationship of employer and employee between the respondent/ bank and the petitioner? 2. Whether petitioner is entitled for the reliefs sought for? 6. During the trial, the 1st respondent was examined himself as WW-1 and marked Ex.W-1 to W-8 documents and the petitioner/ bank examined MW-1 and marked Ex. M-1 to M-3 were marked. 7. The 2nd respondent after considering the evidence both oral and documentary allowed holding that the oral termination order dated 13.08.2002 under which 1st respondent services were terminated by the petitioners bank declared as illegal and arbitrary and same was set aside. Further, directed the petitioners-bank to reinstate the 1st respondent into service as Driver-cum-Messenger forthwith w.e.f 13.08.2002. Further 1st respondent is entitled for all attendant benefits and back wages consequently. Accordingly Award has been passed. 8. Assailing the Award passed by the 2nd respondent, the present Writ Petition came to be filed. 9. Learned Standing Counsel for the petitioners mainly contended that 2nd respondent has erroneously found that the 1st respondent has established the relationship of employer and employee with the petitioner-bank. Accordingly Award has been passed. 8. Assailing the Award passed by the 2nd respondent, the present Writ Petition came to be filed. 9. Learned Standing Counsel for the petitioners mainly contended that 2nd respondent has erroneously found that the 1st respondent has established the relationship of employer and employee with the petitioner-bank. The 2nd respondent has failed to appreciate that merely because of a call letter was obtained from the Office of Employment Exchange, Guntur informing the 1st respondent to attend Interview to be held on 05.02.1974 at State Bank of India, Narasaraopet ADB, Guntur for selection to the post of Driver-cum-Messenger does not constitute itself is a legal relationship of employee. Further contended that the evidence adduced by the petitioner-bank through MW-1 and Exhibits marked as MW-1 to MW-4, which are vouchers, statement of charges account and circular dated 26.12.2005 were failed to be discussed which show that there was no Employer and Employee relationship between the petitioner and 1st respondent. 10. Learned counsel for the petitioners would contend that the 2nd respondent has given much credence to Ex.W7, which is an order passed by the Central Information Commission, directing the Bank to produce some documents, which in fact has no bearing on the above issue. It is the primary duty of the litigant to produce best evidence and no document is placed so as to legally infer the existence of employer and employee relationship. 11. Learned counsel for the petitioners would contend that the petitioners bank has suppressed the fact with regard to the subject dispute, while the fact remains that the 1st respondent is not an employee, rather he owned a jeep and hired the same to the bank and when the facts are amply proved that the 1st respondent is a owner-cum-driver, the issue of Employer and Employee relationship does not arise. Moreover, the 2nd respondent miserably failed to produce sufficient document to substantiate its case with regard to employer and employee relationship. Therefore, the learned Tribunal without appreciating the wages, on which the 1st respondent allegedly appointed and without substantiating the employment, the direction to reinstate w.e.f. 13.08.2002 with back wages is illegal and arbitrary. 12. No counter is filed. Moreover, the 2nd respondent miserably failed to produce sufficient document to substantiate its case with regard to employer and employee relationship. Therefore, the learned Tribunal without appreciating the wages, on which the 1st respondent allegedly appointed and without substantiating the employment, the direction to reinstate w.e.f. 13.08.2002 with back wages is illegal and arbitrary. 12. No counter is filed. Sri M. Pitchaiah, learned Counsel for the 1st respondent, vehemently opposed the claim of the petitioners and contended that the 1st respondent appointed as Driver-cum-Messenger, pursuant to the call letter received from the office of Employment Exchange and worked since 1974 in various branches of the bank. He further contended that the 1st respondent relying on the Ex.W1 to W8 and adduced oral evidence as WW-1. Ex.W1 is copy of Call Letter dated 23.01.1974 received by the 1st respondent from the office Employment Exchange, Guntur, which shows that the 1st respondent was informed to attend interview on 05.02.1974 at State Bank of India, ADB, Narasaraopet, Guntur District for the post of Driver-cum-Messenger, which carries Rs. 116/- plus allowances as salary. Ex.W2 is the particulars of services rendered by the petitioner with the respondent bank would show that the 1st respondent worked as Driver-cum-Messenger with the said bank. Ex.W3 is the Certificate issued by the Bank certifying that the 1st respondent has appointed on temporary service of 3 months and 16 days in various categories in the Bank as Driver-cum-Messenger and also Ex.W4 to W8 would establish the fact with regard to relationship between 1st respondent and petitioners. 13. Learned Counsel for the 1st respondent further contended that one Mr. T.G.Prabhakar, The Chief Manager of the petitioners-bank examined as MW-1, who categorically stated during cross examination that is not disputing with Ex.W1 to W4. Therefore, the factum of 1st respondent in attending an Interview conducted by the petitioners-bank for the post of Driver-cum-Messenger and subsequently 1st respondent worked for the said bank in that capacity is not in dispute. 14. He further contended that the petitioners bank is the custodian of all the service particulars and service records of the 1st respondent, but they failed to produce the same before the learned Tribunal. 15. He further contended that one Mr. 14. He further contended that the petitioners bank is the custodian of all the service particulars and service records of the 1st respondent, but they failed to produce the same before the learned Tribunal. 15. He further contended that one Mr. Prabhakar Rao, Senior Official of the Bank enquired into the matter and made a report to that effect that the 1st respondent has worked for the Bank from 1974 to 2002, but the said report is being suppressed by the petitioners-Bank. MW-1 though denied the truth of this suggestion, failed to file the said report before the court below inspite of his giving an undertaking that he would produce official letter register and also the said enquiry report before the court below. 16. Learned Standing Counsel for the petitioners filed some material papers in this Writ Petition and relied on the decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Mahendra L.Jain & Ors Vs. Indore Development Authority in Appeal (Civil) 337 of 2002, decided on 22.11.2004; General Manager, Electrical Vs. Sri Giridhari Sahu in Civil Appeal No. 8071 of 2010, decided on 12.09.2019 and also Manager, R.B.I, Bangalore Vs. S. Mani & Ors in Appeal (Civil) Nos. 6306-6316 of 2003, decided on 14.03.2005, which are placed with regard to receive the documents as additional material paper for consideration in the writ petition which are not filed before the Court below, though ample opportunity was given, but they failed to produce the same. 17. Learned counsel for the respondents placed on record the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Devinder Singh Vs. Municipal Council, Sanaur, in Appeal No. 3190 of 2011, decided on 11.04.2011, wherein it was held that a Writ of Certiorari can be issued for correcting errors of jurisdiction committed by the inferior courts or tribunals; these are cases where orders are passed by inferior courts or tribunals without jurisdiction, or is in excess of it, or as a result of failure to exercise jurisdiction. 18. In view of the same, a writ can similarly be issued where in exercise of jurisdiction conferred on it, the court or tribunal acts illegally or improperly, as for instance, it decides a question without giving an opportunity to be heard to the party affected by the order, or where the procedure adopted in dealing with the dispute is opposed to principles of natural justice. There is, however, no doubt that the jurisdiction to issue a writ of certiorari is a supervisory jurisdiction and the court exercising it is not entitled to act as an appellate court. This limitation necessarily means that findings of fact reached by the inferior court or tribunal as result of the appreciation of evidence cannot be reopened or questioned in writ proceedings. An error of law which is apparent on the face of the record can be corrected by a writ, but not an error of fact, however grave it may appear to be. In regard to a finding of fact recorded by the tribunal, a writ of certiorari can be issued if it is shown that in recording the said finding, the tribunal had erroneously refused to admit admissible and material evidence, or had erroneously admitted inadmissible evidence, which has influenced the impugned finding. Similarly, if a finding of fact is based on no evidence, that would be regarded as an error of law which can be corrected by a writ of certiorari. 19. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and on perusing the material on record, this Court arrived at a conclusion that the same issues were already decided before the learned Tribunal, but the learned Tribunal has accepted the contentions raised by the 1st respondent and also the petitioners had sufficient ample opportunity to produce any evidence before the learned Tribunal to substantiate their case, but they failed to do so and now they come forward with some other additional evidence, which cannot be admissible in law at this stage and same cannot be looked into. The learned Tribunal based on both oral and documentary evidence of the both the parties, concluded and passed an Award with proper reasoning. 20. Therefore, this Court needless to interfere with the Award passed by the learned Tribunal, accordingly the Writ Petition is dismissed, confirming the Award passed by the learned Tribunal holding that the oral termination order dated 13.08.2002 under which 1st respondent’s services were terminated by the petitioners bank is hereby declared as illegal and arbitrary and same is hereby set aside. The petitioners-Bank is hereby directed to reinstate the 1st respondent into service as Driver-cum-Messenger forthwith w.e.f 13.08.2022. The 1st respondent is entitled for all attendant benefits and back wages consequently. There shall be no order as to costs. The petitioners-Bank is hereby directed to reinstate the 1st respondent into service as Driver-cum-Messenger forthwith w.e.f 13.08.2022. The 1st respondent is entitled for all attendant benefits and back wages consequently. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand dismissed.