D.P.SINGH,J. - (1.) PLEADINGS are exchanged and as such this petition is being finally disposed off under the rules of the Court.
(2.) HEARD learned Counsel for the petitioner and the Standing Counsel for respondent No. 1 and perused the record. None has appeared for the respondent No. 2 even though this case was taken up in the revised list on 19 -9 -2005 and the judgment was reserved. Petitioner is a Company duly incorporated and is engaged in transport business having its registered Head Office at Madras and one of its Branch is situated at Saharanpur. At the relevant time, Mr. G.S. Mani was the Branch Manager at Saharanpur while the respondent workman was the senior clerk -cum -cashier incharge of accounts and the Bank account was being operated under the joint signatures of both the aforesaid persons. Two cheques for total value of Rs. 1,40,385.23 paisa was deposited in one of the accounts of the petitioner company with the Bank on 27 -10 -1988 and on the same day the amount was withdrawn but it was not accounted for. A show cause notice dated 18 -11 -1988 was issued to both the persons whereafter disciplinary proceedings were initiated against them, and Shri L.C. Agarwal, an Advocate of the Apex Court was appointed as Enquiry Officer. Simultaneously, a criminal case was also instituted. During the course of the departmental enquiry, statements of Jamal Uddin, Junior Officer, Kashmir Singh, Manager and the two employees were recorded and several documentary as well as oral evidence was filed before the Enquiry Officer. After due opportunity of hearing to the parties, the respondent workman was found guilty of fraudulently withdrawing the aforesaid amount from the Bank and Shri G.S. Mani was found guilty of negligence. After service of the enquiry report and hearing to the respondent workman, his services were terminated while Shri Mani was reverted with stoppage of increment. The respondent workman approached the Conciliation Officer and upon a failure report, the dispute was referred under Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act to the Labour Court which registered it as adjudication case No. 169 of 1990. The Labour Court framed a preliminary issued with regard to the fairness of the enquiry and found that the enquiry was neither vitiated nor violated the principles of natural justice. However, the Labour Court re -appreciated the evidence available before the Enquiry Officer and has rendered the impugned award dated 31 -7 - 1998 holding that the charge was not proved beyond doubt and as such the workman was entitled for reinstatement with a minor punishment of stoppage of increment for two years but only with 50 per cent back wages. Thus, this petition.
(3.) LEARNED Counsel for the petitioner has urged that the Labour Court cannot sit in appeal over the finding of the Enquiry Officer except when the findings are perverse or based on no evidence. The Enquiry Officer has found as a matter of fact that the workman deposited the cheques in the drawing account instead of in the collection account with motive. It also found as a matter of fact that the workman himself had gone to the Bank to withdraw the money and this was corroborated by another employee Sri Jamal Uddin and the Bank itself. It considered the attending circumstances of the workman handing over charge to Sri Mani in the night at 10.30 p.m. From a perusal of the enquiry report it cannot be said that its findings are based on no evidence or are perverse. There was sufficient material on record for the Enquiry Officer to have recorded the findings of guilt. By now it is well settled that if two views on the said evidence are possible, the Labour Court or any Tribunal would not have jurisdiction to take the other view. The Labour Court cannot also act as a Court of appeal and re -appreciate evidence in a case where it finds that otherwise the enquiry was fair and proper and there was some material to support the findings recorded. The Apex Court in the case of Govt. of Tamil Nadu v. A. Rajapandian, 1995(1) LBESR 77(SC) : AIR 1995 SC 561, has reiterated the aforesaid ratio that where there is some relevant material which disciplinary authority has accepted and which reasonably supports the conclusion reached by it, the Tribunal cannot review the same and reach a different conclusion.;