JUDGMENT :

P.B. Gajendragadkar, CJI.

This appeal by special leave arises out of an industrial dispute between the appellant, the Management of Travancore Titanium Products Ltd., Trivandrum, and the respondents, its workmen through their Union. The dispute in question was in regard to the dismissal of one of the employees of the appellant, Mr N. Ramaswamy Pillai, who was a storekeeper at Trivandrum. The respondent urged that the dismissal of Pillai was unjustified and he was entitled to reinstatement. The appellant contended that the dismissal was justified and the workman concerned was entitled to no relief. The Tribunal has upheld the plea raised by the respondent and has directed the appellant to reinstate Pillai in its employment and to pay him his back wages in full from the date of his dismissal until the date of his reinstatement. It is the correctness and propriety of this award that is challenged before us by Mr Pai on behalf of the appellant.

2. It is common ground that Pillai was, at the relevant time, the Storekeeper in charge of stores in the appellant concern. In the course of his duties, he had to despatch raw materials to the processing plant where the product of titanium dioxide is manufactured. The material supplied in this case in respect of which the workman Pillai was charged is glue. This material is required for the processing of Titanium Dioxide.

3. On 15th September, 1961, Pillai was served with a memo to explain certain discrepancies found in the issue of stores of glue in the month of July 1961. An explanation was submitted by him on 16th September, 1961. Later, on 27th September, 1961, another memo was served on Pillai. This memo sought to correct the amount of glue mentioned in the first memo. On 23rd September, 1961, yet another memo of charge was served on him, and he gave his explanation on 26th September, 1961. The next day, he was served with a formal charge-sheet stating that an enquiry would be conducted against him on 30th September, 1961; the same day he was placed under suspension. An enquiry was then conducted on 30th September, 1961, and as a result of the inquiry, he was dismissed from service on 5th October, 1961.

4. Three charges were framed against Pillai. The first was that in the raw material stores requisitions particulars given below, the third copies retained in the requisition book showed the quantity of glue supplied by him as a bag of 93 lbs, but it was noted that he had altered the figure 1' to 2' bags of 186 lbs in the 1st and 2nd copies thereof, by over-writing, thereby showing a false issue of 1 extra bag of 93 lbs of Glue without actually issuing it to the requisition section of the plant. Then followed a reference to several entries made by Pillai in the requisition book. After they were set out, certain entries in the requisition book which showed suspicious overwriting were mentioned, the result of which was to change 1' bag of glue into 2'; this was Charge 2. The third charge was in relation to Requisition No. 7339 issued on 3rd August, 1961 by Mr R. V. George, and had alleged that Pillai had interpolated an entry in the said requisition relating to 1 bag of glue without actually issuing the material. The substance of the charges was that Pillai had falsely manipulated the stores records knowing the alterations to be false and with deliberate intention of defrauding the Company. The charge-sheet further stated that this conduct on the part of Pillai amounted to misconduct under Standing Order 20, sub-clause (4), of the Standing Orders for Staff.

5. Before the Tribunal, the preliminary question which arose for decision, was whether the domestic enquiry held against Pillai was fair or not. It is well-settled that if the domestic enquiry held against an industrial employee is fair, the findings recorded by the Enquiry Officer cannot be successfully challenged unless it is shown that the said findings are perverse in the sense that they are not based on any evidence at all. If