ORDER
R.K. Merathia, J.
1. Heard the parties finally.
2. Petitioner has challenged the Award dated 5.6.2007, passed by the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Jamshedpur. By Government Notification dated 17.5.1997, the following reference was made for adjudication:
Whether the termination of Sri Dudhnath Ram, Ticket No. 210496, P. No. 45485 workman of M/s. TISCO Ltd., Jamshedpur by the management is proper? If not, what relief the workman is entitled to?
3. A departmental enquiry was initiated against the petitioner on the following charges:
Shri D.N. Ram
P.No. 45485
Store Keeper (Agrico Stores)
Stores Department
On 24.1.1995 while you were on duty in ‘E’ shift at about 2.45 p.m., you received a sum of Rs. 150/- as an illegal gratification as demand by you from Shri Bishwajit Bhowmick, proprietor of M/s Combine Engg. Concern for receiving the material as per Challan No. 165/94-95 dated 24.1.1995 without causing any harassment. When you were challenged by a group of persons viz. Shri Prakash Chandra, Manager (Personnel), Shri M.K. Khan, Dy. Manager, Security Works and others, you took out the same currency notes of the following denomination from your right side pant pocket.
————————————————
S1. Currency Note No. Denomination No. ------------------------------------------------ 1. 2PV 818582 50 ------------------------------------------------ 2. 1VQ 723296 50 ------------------------------------------------ 3. 8 FM 758154 50 ------------------------------------------------
The above act on your part amounts to taking illegal gratification and dishonesty in connection with Company’s business which is a misconduct under Order 23{iii) and (iv) of the Works Standing Orders, 1970 of the Company.
Please explain within 48 hours from the receipt of this letter as to why disciplinary action should not be taken against you for the above act of misconduct.
4. In the departmental proceeding, the parties led evidence before the Enquiry Officer. Charges were found proved. The disciplinary authority agreeing with the charges, passed order of termination of petitioner. Petitioner raised the said industrial dispute. The Labour Court held that the domestic enquiry was fair and proper byway of preliminary issue by order dated 16.1.2006.
5. Mr. Sen, appearing for the petitioner, made the following submissions. The petitioner and one Mr. B.K. Singh, both were found guilty of similar charges but during pendency of the present reference, Mr. B.K. Singh was reinstated. Moreover, the domestic enquiry was not fair and proper and the Labour Court was required to reconsider the findings recorded by the enquiry officer even if the enquiry was found fair and proper, but while deciding the issue No. (iii), the Labour Court has not discussed the materials on record. He referred to paragraph 16 of .
6. On the other hand, Mr. Mishra, appearing for the respondents, supporting the Award, relied on paragraph 8 of the judgment Amrit Vanaspati Co. Ltd. v. Khem Chand, in which paragraph 32 of the judgment of Firestone was quoted. He specially referred to sub paragraphs 3 and 9 of said paragraph 32. He further drew my attention to the findings recorded by the Labour Court.
7. It appears from paragraph 13 of the Award that by order dated 27.6.2003 petitioner was permitted to lead evidence in rebuttal of the Management’s evidence with regard to the purported claim of discrimination, but he did not lead evidence to establish the same. The Labour Court further found that the defence of petitioner and that of Mr. B.K. Singh were different. It further found that the enquiry report of Mr. B.K. Singh was not brought on record by the petitioner.
8. Mr. Sen did not challenge that the disciplinary authority had no power to take disciplinary action.
9. With regard to the submissions made by Mr. Sen that in terms of Section 11A of the I.D. Act, the Labour Court should have considered the enquiry report, it appears from paragraph 15 of the Award that on perusal of the materials brought on the record before the Labour Court, as well as the materials collected during the domestic enquiry, the Labour Court found that the enquiry was fair and proper. It found that the evidence of the workman was duly considered by the enquiry officer and the finding was based on materials and the evidences on record and there was no infirmity or perversity in the procedure also.
10. The enquiry officer was not required to repeat the materials on record noted by him in earlier paragraphs. It appears that he has considered the evidences brought on the record by the parties and has reached to correct findings. It is said in the said judgment of Amrit Vanaspati (supra) that when a domestic enquiry is properly held and the finding of misconduct is a plausible conclusion flowing from the evidence adduced during the enquiry, the tribunal has no jurisdiction to sit in judgment as an appellate body except in case of perversity, victimization, or unfair labour practice or mala fide. It has further been held that once the misconduct is proved either in the enquiry or by the evidence placed before the tribunal, the punishment imposed cannot be interfered by the tribunal except in cases where the punishment is so harsh as to suggest victimization.
11. Mr. Sen sought reappraisal of the evidences. It is settled law that this Court cannot sit as an appellate Court over the findings recorded by the Labour Court unless the same are illegal or perverse.
12. In the facts and circumstances, discussed above, I find no illegality or perversity calling for interference with the impugned Award. Accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed. However, no costs.