JUDGMENT : PRASHANT KUMAR MISHRA, J. 1. This writ appeal would call in question the legality, validity and correctness of the order dated 13.07.2011 passed by learned single Judge allowing W.P. No. 11022 of 2002 preferred by workman (respondent No. 1 herein) with a direction to the respondents in the writ petition to reinstate the workman into service with continuity of service and without back wages. 2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case, which are relevant for the purpose of decision of the present appeal, are that the workman/writ petitioner was working as conductor in the appellant-Corporation in Kadapa District, prior to his termination. While he was on duty in the bus on 08.06.1997 on the route Pendlimarri-Kadapa, a surprise check was conducted by the Regional Enforcement Squad, Kadapa, wherein it was alleged that certain cash and ticket irregularities were detected. The workman was issued a charge memo, for which he submitted explanation, but being dissatisfied with the same, domestic enquiry was conducted, wherein the workman was found guilty and was terminated from service by order dated 07.01.1998. The appeal and review filed by the workman were rejected, against which, he raised Industrial Dispute before the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, vide I.D. No. 313 of 1998, which was decided against him on 19.09.2001. Aggrieved by the order of the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court in the above I.D. the workman filed the writ petition. 3. The only ground upon which the writ Court allowed the writ petition preferred by the workman is that the charge of re-issuance of tickets to a batch of passengers, which tickets were already issued in the previous trip, and collection of fare, is based on perverse findings inasmuch as the workman has been denying the charge from the very inception and the management witness also deposed in his cross-examination that during the course of check, the officials have not found any unconnected or old tickets and that the workman has specifically stated that during the check, he has neither issued the tickets nor collected the amount. Based on these admissions of the management witness in the cross-examination, the learned single Judge has recorded a finding that the workman has not re-issued the tickets, which were issued in the earlier trip and also has not collected the amount, as alleged in the charge memo. Based on these admissions of the management witness in the cross-examination, the learned single Judge has recorded a finding that the workman has not re-issued the tickets, which were issued in the earlier trip and also has not collected the amount, as alleged in the charge memo. It is recorded by the learned single Judge that the findings of the enquiry officer, without noticing the crucial admission of the management witness-TTI in the cross-examination, are perverse and the Tribunal also being oblivious of this material evidence wrongly confirmed the findings of the enquiry officer, which are liable to be set aside. 4. Mr. N. Srihari, learned standing counsel appearing for the appellant, urged before us that the finding recorded by the learned single Judge is perverse inasmuch as not only the disciplinary authority but also the Labour Court recorded a finding about the guilt of the workman and therefore, the learned single Judge ought not to have set aside those findings in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 5. It is pertinent to note that ordinarily the writ Court should not set aside the findings of fact recorded by the disciplinary authority or by the Labour Court. It is equally well-settled that if the findings are perverse or if the findings are not born out of the record or the same have been recorded ignoring the material piece of evidence, the writ Court can interfere in the matter. 6. The learned single Judge has referred to the judgments rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Workmen vs. Firestone Tyre and Rubber Co. of India Pvt. Ltd. (1973) 1 SCC 813 and M/s Bharat Iron Works vs. Bhagubhai Balubhai Patel and Others, (1976) 1 SCC 518 , wherein principles have been laid down as to the interference with the findings recorded in the domestic enquiry against an employee. 7. On perusal of the material available on record, it is obvious that nothing has been submitted before this Court to demonstrate as to how the finding recorded by the learned single Judge is perverse. The learned single Judge has specifically referred to the relevant part of the cross- examination of the management witness. However, the deposition of the management witness has not been placed before us so as to demonstrate that the finding recorded by the learned single Judge is perverse. 8. The learned single Judge has specifically referred to the relevant part of the cross- examination of the management witness. However, the deposition of the management witness has not been placed before us so as to demonstrate that the finding recorded by the learned single Judge is perverse. 8. The material on record would indicate that the workman was removed from service on 07.01.1998. The writ petition was preferred in the year 2002, which came to be allowed by order dated 13.07.2011. This writ appeal has been filed in the year 2012 and is pending since last more than about ten years. It is informed that during pendency of this appeal, the workman has already been reinstated into service and he was promoted to the next higher post, however, his promotion was subsequently withdrawn on account of pendency of this writ appeal. 9. Considering that no material was placed before us to demonstrate that the finding recorded by the learned single Judge is perverse and in view of the fact that the workman has already been reinstated into service and he has been working for the last ten years, we are not inclined to interfere with the order passed by the learned single Judge. 10. Accordingly, the Writ Appeal is dismissed. No costs. All pending miscellaneous applications shall stand dismissed.