R. P. SETHI, C. J.

( 1 ) SERVICES of the respondent-workman were terminated w. e. f. 30-7-1982 by the appellant. It was alleged that the respondent-workman had prefered the finds to the extent of Rs. Rs. 10,000/- in order to suppress or conceal and to play fraud on the Bank in the year 1979. The workman alleged that he had been working honestly to the satisfaction of his superiors for a period of 17 years but was wrongly charge-sheeted on 6-9-1980 on frivolous grounds and without any material. The action of the appellant was stated to be amounting to victimisation and unfair labour practice initiated with mala fide intention. The government of Karnataka by its Order No. SWL 418 LLD 84, dated 10-5-1984 referred the dispute for adjudication to the labour Court. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties the labour Court framed the following issues:1. II Party to prove that Section 70 of K. C. S. Act bars the jurisdiction of this Court and hence, the reference is not maintainable. 2. II Party to prove that domestic enquiry is valid and proper. 3. II Party to prove justification of dismissal order. 4. I Party to prove unfair labour practice by II Party5. I Party to prove that punishment is too harsh. 6. To what relief?2.

( 2 ) THE Labour Court vide its order dated 22-10-1986 held that the domestic enquiry was not fair and proper. The appellant-employer examined Sri M. Venkategowda and Sri P. Venkoba Rao. Number of documents were also produced. The workman also produced his own witnesses. On critical examination of the statement of witnesses, perusal of the record and taking note of the acquittal of the workman from a criminal case, the Labour Court concluded that the respondent-workman was not guilty of the charges levelled against him. The reference was allowed. Dismissal of the termination order passed against the respondent was set aside with direction to the appellant to reinstate him into service with continuity and other benefits. The respondent was also held entitled to backwages from the date of dismissal or termination till his reinstatement. The writ petition filed by the appellant was dismissed vide the order impugned in this appeal.

( 3 ) THE learned Counsel appearing for the appellant has vehemently argued that the findings of the Labour Court were contrary to record and based upon mis-appreciation of evidence it is 'further contended that even if the respondent was to be reinstated, the appellant could not be burdened with the responsibility of paying him with the full backwages.

( 4 ) IT is settled position of law that writ jurisdiction of the High Court is not a substitute of an appeal. The exercise of the jurisdiction is only supervisory. The Court would normally interfere with the awards of the Labour Court, Board or tribunal only if it is satisfied that such award was without jurisdiction or vitiated by the error of law apparent on the face of the record. The Court may also interfere if the award is found to have been passed in violation of principles of natural justice. The supreme Court in State of Orissa and Another v Murlidhar jena, held that in proceedings under Articles 226 and 227 of the constitution, the High Court cannot sit in appeal over the findings recorded by a competent Tribunal in a departmental enquiry held by it. It cannot re-appreciate the evidence in exercise of such jurisdiction. However, if it is shown that the impugned findings recorded by the Tribunal were not supported by any evidence, the High Court may be justified in setting aside such findings. In exercise of the writ jurisdiction this Court would not interfere only on the ground that the decision was wrong. The question of the sufficiency of the evidence cannot be raised in the writ proceedings. In appropriate cases the Court may consider the case on facts if it is shown that the findings returned by the Tribunal were based upon no evidence, or were arrived at upon by such evidence which was not an admissible evidence or that the

Click Here to Read the rest of this document