ORDER : 1. Heard learned standing counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and learned Government Pleader for Labour appearing for the 1st respondent and learned counsel for the 2nd respondent. 2. This writ petition is filed by the petitioner praying to issue a Writ of Certiorari calling for the records relating to the impugned order dated 23.09.2013 in I.D.No.19 of 2009 on the file of Labour Court, Warangal and set aside the same as illegal and arbitrary. 3. The case of the petitioner, in brief, is as follows: a) The 2nd respondent had been appointed as Conductor w.e.f. 18.09.1979 and while on duty as conductor and was booked to operate, on bus bearing No. AAZ 7534, on route Barainpally on 15.10.1986. b) A check, by the Checking Inspectors of Divisional Enforcement Squad, Warangal was exercised and certain cash & ticket irregularities were detected by TTI’s and a charge memo NO. 16300, dated 15.10.1986 was served on the 2nd respondent against which the 2nd respondent had admitted all the irregularities by sorting a spot explanation. c) The Check report has been forwarded to Depot Manager, Janagaon for taking necessary action and the Depot Manager based on the check report had placed the 2nd respondent under suspension vide order dated 06.11.1986 and a charge sheet dated 06.11.1986 had been framed against the 2nd respondent. c) The 2nd respondent submitted explanation dated 07.11.1986 against the said charge sheet. Not convinced with the said explanation, the petitioner - Depot Manager ordered for domestic enquiry into the charges nominating the Chief Inspector (Enquiries), Divisional Manager’s Office, Warangal as the Enquiry Officer. c) The enquiry was conducted and the 2nd respondent cross examined the management witnesses. The 2nd respondent even deposed his statement of defence and the entire Enquiry Proceedings were read over and explained to the 2nd respondent and the 2nd respondent expressed total satisfaction regarding the conduct of enquiry and thus a fair and proper enquiry had been held into the charges against the 2nd respondent. d) The Enquiry Officer submitted the Enquiry Report and held that all the charges levelled against the 2nd respondent were proved. As per enquiry report, Petitioner imposed penalty of postponement of annual increment next fall’s due for a period of two years with cumulative effect and treating the suspension period as not on duty’vide order dated 30.01.1987. d) The Enquiry Officer submitted the Enquiry Report and held that all the charges levelled against the 2nd respondent were proved. As per enquiry report, Petitioner imposed penalty of postponement of annual increment next fall’s due for a period of two years with cumulative effect and treating the suspension period as not on duty’vide order dated 30.01.1987. d) Aggrieved by the order of the petitioner, the 2nd respondent approached the conciliation machinery under Section 2(k) of Industrial Disputes Act in the year 2008 i.e. with a delay of 21 years. As the conciliation failed, the Government had referred the matter to the Labour Court. e) The Labour Court, Warangal without proper appreciation of facts and evidence on record passed an award on 23.09.2013 in I.D.No.19 of 2009 holding that the action of the Corporation in withholding the annual increment of the 2nd respondent for a period of two years with cumulative effect is not justified and it is modified as deferment of annual grade increment for a period of one year without cumulative effect. Hence, this writ petition is filed. PERUSED THE RECORD 4. The relevant portion of the order dated 23.09.2013 in I.D.No.19 of 2009 passed by the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court at Warangal, reads as under: “The employer has imposed the punishment only after completing regular departmental enquiry. Therefore, the principles of natural justice were also followed. However, the punishment imposed against the petitioner is too harsh, because the annual grade increment of the petitioner was deferred for a period of two years with cumulative effect and the period of suspension as not on duty. If the annual grade increment is deferred for two years with cumulative effect it will have its impact on the income of the petitioner through out his carrier. The petitioner may be due to rush of the work was unable to issue tickets to all the passengers and there was no malafide intention for him to collect any money from the passengers to have personal gain.” 5. This Court vide its order dated 04.06.2014 in W.P.M.P.No.18641 of 2014 passed the following interim order as follows: “The learned counsel for the petitioner is permitted to take out personal notice to the second respondent through registered post with acknowledgment due returnable in two weeks, and file proof of service into the Registry. This Court vide its order dated 04.06.2014 in W.P.M.P.No.18641 of 2014 passed the following interim order as follows: “The learned counsel for the petitioner is permitted to take out personal notice to the second respondent through registered post with acknowledgment due returnable in two weeks, and file proof of service into the Registry. Pending further orders, there shall be an interim suspension of the award dated 23.09.2013 in I.D.No.19 of 2009 passed by the first respondent – Labour Court.” The above interim order is in force as on today. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION 6. Three specific charges framed against the petitioner are as follows: “1. For having violated the rule ‘issue and start’. 2. For having failed to collect fare and issue tickets to a batch of two children and two lady passengers, who were found travelling from Veldanda to Ladnoor, ex-stages 5 to 6, which is a misconduct in terms of Reg.28(vi)(a) of APSRTC Employees’ (Conduct) Reg. 1963. 3. For having failed to collect the fare and issue tickets to one passenger who was found travelling from Veldanda to Maddoor, ex-stages 5 to 7 which is a misconduct in terms of reg.28(vi)(a) of APSRTC Employees’ (Conduct) Reg. 1963.” 7. This Court takes note of the fact as borne on record that the Enquiry Officer in the present case recorded his findings based on the material evidence available wherein all the charges levelled against the 2nd respondent were held to be proved on receipt of the report from the Enquiry Officer, the Depot Manager, Jagaon once again went through the proceedings of the enquiry and the findings of the Enquiry Officer and came to the conclusion that the Enquiry Officer had conducted a fair and proper enquiry and in the light of the finding of the Enquiry Officer, the Depot Manager conferred with the findings of the Enquiry Officer and came to an independent conclusion that the charges levelled against the petitioner stands proved beyond any reasonable doubt which constitute serious misconduct, this Court opines further that having considered all the aspects involved in the case and the length of service put in by the 2nd respondent, the Depot Manager tentatively came to the conclusion that the penalty of punishment of annual increment next post due for the period of two years with cumulative effect and treating the suspension period “as not on duty” is just and proper. Accordingly, vide order dated 30.06.1987, the Depot Manager imposed penalty of postponement of annual increment next post due for the period of two years with cumulative effect and treating the suspension period as not on duty. 8. This Court also takes note of the fact that the 2nd respondent is bereft of clean record since several penalties were inflicted on him prior to his removal from service in the instant case as detailed hereunder: Censure – one time. Increment deferred – four times Suspended – two times Removed – one time. The same in fact had been specifically averred at Ground No.VIII of the grounds raised in its affidavit filed by the petitioner in support of the present writ petition and not denied at all by the 2nd respondent herein. Therefore, the same indicates that the petitioner was irregular in his duties and irresponsible too. In view of the fact that the checking officials noticed three irregularities in the duties discharged by the 2nd respondent herein and since he did not issue tickets to four passengers, he has violated mainly the rule ‘issue and start’ and the explanation submitted by the petitioner was not accepted and therefore, the petitioner herein had ordered for domestic enquiry during which all the relevant witnesses were examined and cross examined by the 2nd respondent herein. But however, he could not elicit anything in favour of his claim. This Court opines that there is no necessity to interfere with the findings of the Depot Manager in view of the fact that a fair and proper enquiry had been held and the charges proved against the 2nd respondent basing on the evidence available on record and therefore, the punishment imposed by the petitioner is adequate. 9. The Apex Court in the judgment reported in 2006(5) SCC 201 in South Indian Cashew Factories Workers’ Union v Kerala State Cashew Development Corporation Limited and others at para 16, in particular, observed as under: “The powers of the Labour Court in the absence of Section 11A is illustrated by this Court in Workmen of Firestone Tyre and Rubber Co. of India (Pvt.) Ltd. v. The Management [ (1973) 1 SCC 813 ]. When enquiry was conducted fairly and properly, in the absence of any of the allegations of victimisation or malafides or unfair labour practice, Labour Court has no power to interfere with the punishment imposed by the management. of India (Pvt.) Ltd. v. The Management [ (1973) 1 SCC 813 ]. When enquiry was conducted fairly and properly, in the absence of any of the allegations of victimisation or malafides or unfair labour practice, Labour Court has no power to interfere with the punishment imposed by the management. Since Section 11A is not applicable, Labour Court has no power to re-appraise the evidence to find out whether the findings of the enquiry officer are correct or not or whether the punishment imposed is adequate or not. Of course, Labour Court can interfere with the findings if the findings are perverse. But, here there is a clear finding that the findings are not perverse and principles of natural justice were complied with while conducting enquiry.” 10. This Court opines that the Labour Court ought not have interfered with the findings of the Depot Manager which had been passed on clear evidence and more so when the enquiry was conducted in the present case fairly and properly inconformity with the principles of natural justice. This Court opines that the Labour Court in the present case had exceeded its jurisdiction and re-appreciated the evidence and held that the punishment imposed against the petitioner is too harsh and it is liable to be modified and modified the same modifying deferment of annual grade increment of the petitioner for the period of one year without cumulative effect, this Court opines that the same is not permissible in the present case in view of the fact as borne on record that the findings arrived at by the Depot Manager are based on evidence and are not perverse. 11. The writ petition is accordingly allowed as prayed for and the Award dated 23.09.2013 passed in I.D.No.19 of 2009 by the Labour Court, Warangal is hereby quashed. But however, there shall be no order as to costs. 12. The interim order dated 04.06.2014 in W.P.M.P.No.1641 of 2014 stands vacated. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand closed.