( 1 ) PRESENT is a Letters Patent Appeal under Clause-15 of the Letters Patent by the workman being aggrieved by the judgement dated 21st August, 1998 passed in special Civil Application Nos. 2766 and 2762 of 1998.

( 2 ) IT is to be seen that on a written complaint made by as many as four officers of the Establishment, departmental proceedings were started against the present workman; despite number of opportunities to him, he did not appear before the inquiring Authority, therefore, ex parte inquiry was conducted against him. All the four officers, who joined in the complaint, were examined and after recording the evidence, the Inquiry Officer recorded that the misconduct to the tune that the delinquent abused the officers and made physical assault on him, was proved. The Establishment, thereafter, terminated the services. Being aggrieved by the said action, the present appellant took up the matter before the Labour Court. In the Labour Court, he made an application that he was not challenging the correctness, validity and propriety of the inquiry proceedings, but, was challenging the correctness of the findings and the quantum of punishment. After hearing the parties, the Labour Court observed that as one of the eye witnesses was not examined and as there were material contradictions in the statements of the witnesses, which were recorded by the Inquiry Officer, order of punishment of termination could not be issued. Being aggrieved by the said order, the Establishment filed a Special Civil Application before this court. The learned single Judge, after hearing the parties, came to the conclusion that there was no scope for the Labour Court to enter into the factual disputes, especially, on the facts that the alleged incident was proved or not. He also found that the approach of the Labour Court was illegal and was absolutely perverse. Setting aside the findings recorded by the Labour Court, the learned single Judge observed that the findings recorded by the Inquiry officer was justified and in the given case, there was no scope for interference on the question of punishment. Being aggrieved by the said findings recorded by the learned single Judge, the appellant-workman is before this Court.

( 3 ) MR. MUKUL Sinha, learned Counsel for the appellant, took us through the chargesheet, the reply, the other documents, including copy of the complaint made by the four officers, copy of the complaint made by the victim to the officer and copy of the First Information Report lodged by the victim with the police, and asked us to reappreciate the entire evidence. He submitted that in view of the material contradictions in the statements of the witnesses and the conduct, which was exhibited by the victim all through, it would clearly appear that present was a concocted matter. He, however, submitted that hot exchange of words between the employee and the officers being ordinary wear and tear of life and the services, should not lead to the conclusion that the employee committed some wrong or misconduct wanting dismissal from his settled life.

( 4 ) ON the other hand, learned Counsel for the respondent-Establishment submitted that the learned single Judge did not reappreciate the evidence, rather he had considered the jurisdiction of the Labour Court and observed that the Labour court was unjustified in interfering with the findings on trivial and small issues. The learned single Judge had observed that the Labour Court had no jurisdiction to interfere in the matter.

( 5 ) PLACING reliance upon a judgement of the Supreme Court in the matter of t. Prem Sagar vs. M/s. Standard Vacuum Oil Company, Madras and Ors. , AIR 1965 SC 111, Mr. Sinha submitted that if the High Court comes to a conclusion that an error of law is floating on the surface of the record, then, instead of entering into examining the evidence available, it should refer the matter back to the tribunal, which is assigned the work under the law. His further submi