the applicant has filed a memo under Section 11-A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for brevity ‘the Act’) accepted the departmental proceedings. Further, it was also pointed out by the learned Single judge that in the enquiry, except a bare statement on his behalf, nothing has been rebutted by him. Even the witness who has been examined on behalf of the management viz., M.S.Reddy was not cross-examined. It is also found that sufficient opportunity was given to the appellant for crossexamination of the said witness but he did not choose to do so. Therefore, having regard to such evidence available on record, the Labour Court did not find it appropriate to interdict the finding of fact which has been given by the enquiry officer in the absence of any rebuttal or perversity as such. Similarly, the learned Single Judge also found that on the face of it the findings of fact based on the aforesaid evidence and the documents marked on behalf of the management in Exs.M-1 to M-18, there exist no reason to interfere with any such finding of fact. In support, the learned Single Judge sought to place reliance on the U.P.State Road Transport Corporation v. A.K.Parul[1] wherein it was held that powers of the High Court under Article 26 are quite narrow and limited and would not include the interference on all such facts. Therefore, it was held that the enquiry officer rightly held that the charges which have been framed against the appellant are proved and hence, it does not call for any interference. Hence, dismissed the writ petition.
