The appellate authority is required to review the evidence from the domestic enquiry and ascertain whether the dismissal is supported by satisfactory evidence. If the findings in the domestic enquiry are well-founded, the appellate authority is not obligated to consider the evidence adduced before it.

Narendran, J.

1. The appellants in Shop Appeals Nos. 29 and 30 of 1969 before the 1st respondent-Additional Deputy Labour Commissioner and Appellate Authority, Trivandrum are the petitioners in this Original Petition. The 1st petitioner was the depot assistant and the 2nd petitioner the depot attender in the F.A.C.T. Central Depot at Haripad. They were dismissed from service with effect from 25th September 1969 and the shop appeals filed by the petitioners before the 1st respondent were also dismissed by Ext. P-1 order dated 11th May 1973. The main contention urged by the learned counsel for the petitioners is that the Appellate Authority under section 18 (2) of the Kerala Shops and Commercial Establishments Act, 1960 (for short, the Act) cannot ignore the evidence adduced before it in deciding the appeals.

2. The charge against the petitioners was that on 8th February 1969 when they were working in the Central Depot of the 2nd respondent-Fertilizers and Chemicals Travancore Ltd., Haripad they were responsible for the issue of one bag of ammonium sulphate nitrate to a party without preparing the cash bill for the sale and they did this with the motive of appropriating the value of the article issued. The explanation of the 1st petitioner was that on 8th February 1969 the 2nd petitioner wanted a bag of ammonium sulphate nitrate for his own purpose and that the amount available with him was not sufficient. So, he promised to pay the amount the next day and accordingly he was permitted to take one bag of ammonium sulphate nitrate. It was further stated that the 2nd petitioner brought the balance amount the next day and that the bill was written on that date. The 1st petitioner in his explanation has stated that this was a concession given to a member of the staff and also requested that the above lapse may be excused. The explanation of the 2nd petitioner was that a friend of his one Sukumara Pillai required one bag of ammonium sulphate nitrate urgently and as the party had not sufficient money with him, with the knowledge of the 1st petitioner one bag of ammonium sulphate nitrate was released to the party on the understanding that the bill could be written on 10th February 1969 when the money would be paid by the party. An enquiry was conducted by the Area Manager of the 2nd respondent-company and the petitioners were directed to appear before him at 2 p.m. on 12th March 1969. The petitioners also were informed that they were at liberty to vindicate their position by examining their witnesses and cross-examining the witnesses produced on behalf of the management. The enquiry was conducted on 12th March 1969 and 4th July 1969. Witnesses were examined and the statements made by the witnesses were signed by the petitioners, the enquiry officer and the witnesses concerned. The enquiry officer in his report found the petitioners guilty on their own admission and on the strength of the statements of the witnesses examined on the side of the management. The enquiry officer also recommended that the petitioners may be dismissed. Accordingly the petitioners were dismissed. Against the dismissal orders the petitioners filed Shop Appeals Nos. 29 and 30 of 1969 before the 1st respondent.

3. The petitioners contended before the 1st respondent that the domestic enquiry conducted was a false and they were not given opportunity to adduce their evidence. The enquiry officer did not consider the explanations given by them. The enquiry was conducted in violation of the principles of natural justice and therefore the petitioners contended in the appeals that the dismissal orders may be set aside and they may be directed to be reinstated. The 2nd respondent contended before the 1st respondent that the services of the petitioners were terminated on a charge of misconduct supported by satisfactory evidence recorded at a domestic enquiry. The petitioners were given opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses examined in support of the party and to