( 1 ) THE scope of interference with the order of the Industrial Tribunal in connection with an industrial dispute relating to dismissal of the workman under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by the High Court is very limited.

( 2 ) THE powers of the High Court to interfere with such an order of the industrial Tribunal is circumscribed by various limitations as pointed out by the Hon'ble Supreme Court repeatedly in various decisions.

( 3 ) REAPPRAISAL and/or re-examination of evidence led in disciplinary proceeding by the High Court in its Constitutional writ jurisdiction was always discarded by the Hon'ble Supreme Court.

( 4 ) SINCE the Enquiry Officer and the disciplinary authority are the sole judges of facts, the adequacy and reliability of evidence cannot be canvassed before the High Court in a writ proceeding under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

( 5 ) JUDICIAL review under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, not being an appeal from a decision, but a review of the manner in which the decision was arrived at, the High Court while exercising the power of judicial review must remain conscious of the fact that if the decision has been arrived at by the administrative authority after following the principles established by law and the rules of natural justice and the individual has received a fair treatment to meet the case against him, the High Court cannot substitute its judgment for that of the administrative authority on a matter which falls squarely within the sphere of jurisdiction of that authority.

( 6 ) IN spite of the aforesaid restrictions, the power of the High Court to interfere with the order of the Tribunal in Article 226 of the Constitution of india, has been recognised by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in certain cases where the findings arrived at by the inferior Tribunal are perverse and not based on any material evidence or it resulted in manifest of injustice.

( 7 ) HERE is the case where the order of the Enquiry Officer has been challenged on the ground of perversity. Perverse finding in legal parlance means a finding which is not only against the weight of evidence but is altogether against the evidence itself. A wrong finding is not necessarily a perverse finding. A finding cannot be said to be perverse merely because it is possible to take a different view of the evidence. Merely because the Tribunal has drawn certain adverse inferences or conclusions from the evidence-on-record, it does not necessarily lead to the conclusion that the Tribunal was partial or biased or that the findings are perverse. The reasons given by the Tribunal may not be very cogent or logical but such findings cannot be called into question as arbitrary, perverse or is actuated by bias.

( 8 ) KEEPING in mind the aforesaid restrictions on the Court's power of interference, this Court will have to consider the validity and/or legality of the order of dismissal of the petitioners which was passed on the basis of the report of the Enquiry Officer submitted on 11th May, 1998 in connection with the domestic enquiry with regard to the chargesheet dated 28th November, 1998 issued by Bata India Ltd. to the petitioners.

( 9 ) MR. Mallick, learned Senior Counsel, appearing on behalf of the petitioners, challenged the legality of the report of the Enquiry Officer on the ground of perversity as the Enquiry Officer, while coming to his conclusion, did not take into consideration the most vital part of the evidence of S. N. Lahiri, P. W. 2. According to Mr. Mallick, non-consideration of the evidence of the char gesheeted employees also makes the conclusion perverse. Mr. Mallick contended that placing reliance on indirect and/or inferential evidence leaving direct evidence beyond consideration is the other example of perversity in the findings of the enquiry Officer.

( 10 ) MR. Mallick further submitted that if the conclusion which was arrived at by the Enquiry Officer is found to be perverse, then this Court can ce

Click Here to Read the rest of this document