ORDER : This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the following relief:- "To issue an appropriate writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of a writ of Certiorari declaring the award made in I.D.No.122 of 2008 on the file of the Chairman-cum-Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Ananthapur, as illegal, arbitrary and quash the same by calling for records relating to the said award dated 01.06.2011 and to pass such other orders." 2. A charge was framed against the unofficial 1st respondent herein alleging that while the 1st respondent was performing his duties in the bus on bus bearing registration No.AP 10Z 126 on 02.01.2004 on route Pakala-Chittoor and the vehicle driven by the 1st respondent met with an accident. Basing upon the said accident, a charge was framed against the 1st respondent herein and sought for explanation and accordingly the 1st respondent has submitted his explanation. Dissatisfied with the explanation submitted by the 1st respondent, a regular enquiry was conducted and the 1st respondent was removed from the service. 3. Aggrieved by the said order, the 1st respondent has preferred appeal before the appellate authority and the appellate authority has modified the order of removal in the place of revival order and ordered for fresh appointment to the 1st respondent herein. 4. Aggrieved by the said order, the 1st respondent has approached the reviewing authority and the reviewing authority has further modified the order fresh appointment in lieu of fresh appointment, the reviewing authority has passed orders by reduction of payment to minimum in the time scale of Driver Grade-II for a period of two years with cumulative effect, besides stating that the period of date of removal as on duty on reinstatement on Sri Md.Baig, E.No.508897, Driver, APSRTC, vide orders dated 16.08.2005 is justified. Aggrieved by the said reduction of the payment of pay to the minimum, the 1st respondent herein filed I.D.No.122 of 2008 on the file of the Chairman-cum-Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal-cum- Labour Court, Anantapur (hereinafter called, „the Labour Court”), under Section 10(1)(C) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Aggrieved by the said reduction of the payment of pay to the minimum, the 1st respondent herein filed I.D.No.122 of 2008 on the file of the Chairman-cum-Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal-cum- Labour Court, Anantapur (hereinafter called, „the Labour Court”), under Section 10(1)(C) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The Chairman-cum-Presiding Officer, by order dated 01.06.2011, has set aside the order of reviewing authority and allowed the application and directed to restore the deferred time scale without punishment on notional basis from 16.08.2005 and also held that the 1st respondent herein is entitled for monetary benefits from the date of passing of the award. 5. Assailing the said order in the said I.D.No.122 of 2008 dated 01.06.2011, the present Writ Petition came to be filed on the ground that the Labour Court has no jurisdiction to re-appraise the evidence and the learned counsel appearing for the Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation-petitioner herein has relied on the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in South Indian Cashew Factories Workers’ Union v. Kerala State Cashew Development Corpn. Ltd. and others, (2006) 5 SCC 201 for the proposition that the Labour Court cannot re-appraise the evidence adduced in the enquiry and also cannot sit in appeal over the decision of the employer in imposing punishment. 6. Per contra, learned counsel for the 1st respondent herein, who is the employee, would submit that the enquiry authority has not conducted the enquiry as per law and not assigned valid reasons and the order of termination is without any basis and the Labour Court has got power to re-appraise the evidence and relied on the judgments of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Workmen v. Firestone Tyre and Rubber Co. of India (P) Ltd., (1973) 1 SCC 813 , wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court held that the Tribunal can reappraise the evidence in the domestic enquiry in order to satisfy itself whether the misconduct alleged against the workman is established and even the said judgment has been followed in the citation relied on by the learned counsel for the petitioner, i.e., South Indian Cashew Factories Workers’ Union’s case (1 supra). 7. As rightly contested by the learned counsel for the 1st respondent herein, the Industrial Tribunal can re-appraise the evidence when it finds that the enquiry is perverse and without any basis. 7. As rightly contested by the learned counsel for the 1st respondent herein, the Industrial Tribunal can re-appraise the evidence when it finds that the enquiry is perverse and without any basis. The Industrial Tribunal has categorically given a finding basing upon the record that the accident was occurred when the students, who were waiting for the bus, jointly entered into the bus and the deceased girl and the other students quarreled each other and in that process, the girl fallen down and received injuries. 8. Section 11A was incorporated in the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, under the said Section, power is vested with Labour Courts/Tribunals to interfere with the order of discharge or dismissal (if it finds that the termination of employment was not justified) and this Section came to be considered depth in Workmen v. Firestone Tyre and Rubber Co. of India (P) Ltd.’s case (2 supra). The Tribunal can set aside or modify the order when, (a) if it finds that the order of the inquiring authority is for want of bona fides, (b) it is a case of victimization or unfair labour practice or violation of principles of natural justice, or (c) there is a basic error on facts and (d) there is a perverse finding on the materials. 9. The enquiry authority has observed in the enquiry report in the following manner: “that the 1st respondent herein without entering into the bus stand and he has tried to keep the vehicle outside the bus stand due to which the passengers failed to board the bus and the bus was moving, in such situation the girl fallen under the tyre and the accident occurred”. The finding of the inquiring authority is contrary to the finding of the Labour Court. The Labour Court has given its finding considering the evidence of the witnesses and the finding of the inquiring authority is without any basis and perverse. Hence, as rightly contested by the 1st respondent herein, the finding of the inquiring authority is without any basis. Hence, the Labour Court has rightly considered the evidence of the witnesses and held that there is no fault on the part of the 1st respondent. Hence, as rightly contested by the 1st respondent herein, the finding of the inquiring authority is without any basis. Hence, the Labour Court has rightly considered the evidence of the witnesses and held that there is no fault on the part of the 1st respondent. As such, the order of the inquiring authority is perverse and the Labour Court has rightly set aside the order of the reviewing authority and directed to restore the deferred time scale without any punishment on notional basis from 16.08.2005. Hence, I found no reasons to interfere with the orders of the Labour Court in I.D.No.122 of 2008 dated 01.06.2011. 10. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs of the Writ Petition. As a sequel, interlocutory applications pending, if any, in this Writ Petition shall stand closed.