1. This writ petition has been preferred by the petitioner-Management of Projects and Development India Limited against the Award dated 8th September, 1995 pronounced on 19th November, 1995, passed by the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Dhanbad, in Reference Case No. 7 of 1993, whereby and whereunder, the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Dhanbad, while held that the Management failed to justify its action taken in regard to the dismissal of the concerned workman (2nd respondent herein), set aside the order of dismissal and reinstated the workman in service with full back wages and other consequential benefits.

2. As the case can be disposed of on a short point, it is not necessary to discuss all the facts, except relevant one as mentioned hereunder:

The workman was preceded departmentally for charges of theft fraud, dishonesty, deception, corrupt practices in connection with Companys business/property/work of the company and for misappropriating the Companys fund temporarily. Following charge was leveled against him:

That you claimed L.T.C. amount of Rs. 5950.00 only in the year 1981 indicating the travel made by yourself and your family members from Nirsa to Trivendrum by Luxury Coach Bus No. WMH-6231 belonging to Dipti Travel a Travelling Agent having Government Regd. No. 1938, Nirsa, G.T. Road. You have shown your travel from 5.1.1981 and return on 22.1.1981. On enquiry it was observed that there was no Dipti Travels registered at any time having its registered office at Nirsa. The Regd. No. WMH-6231 was in favour of a Dumper and it is belonging to Eastern Coalfields Ltd., Santoria, Burdwan, P.O.Disergarh, Kustorea Area. Thus, you have submitted a false bill of having traveled through Dipti Travels Luxury Coach Bus No. WMH-6231 and submitted a forge documents for claiming the amount Rs. 5950/- against which you have received from the management an amount of Rs. 5432/-

3. In the departmental proceeding he was given opportunity and the Enquiry Officer on appreciation of evidence came to a definite finding that the workman produced forged document for claiming L.T.C. amount and received some amount from the Management. The decision was forwarded to the workman and after receipt of the reply, he was dismissed from service by the order dated 19th June 1992 (Ext. M-14).

4. At the instance of the workman the Government of Bihar vide its notification No. III/D-2-5017/92 L and E-1492 dated 18th September, 1993 referred the following dispute for adjudication by the Labour Court, Dhanbad:

Whether the termination of services of Sri P.V.P. RaoSenior Technician, Project and Development India Ltd., Sindri Dhanbad is proper? If not whether he should be reinstated on the job or/and should be given compensation?

5. As stated above, the reference was answered in favour of workman by the impugned Award dated 8th September. 1995 pronounced on 19th November. 1995.

6. Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner assailed the Award on the following grounds:

(a) The Labour Court answered the award in favour of workman though the evidence is otherwise not based on evidence; and

(b) The quantum of punishment of dismissal from service can not be stated to be disproportionate to the gravity of charge as held by Labour Court.

7. On the other hand, according to the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the 2nd respondent the Award of the Labour Court being based on appreciation of evidence, the High Court should not interfere with the same while exercising power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

8. In this case we are not inclined to go into the merit of the charges nor inclined to re-appreciate the evidence. We have noticed the finding of the Labour Court to find out whether it is perverse or not.

From the impugned Award, it will be evident that the substantive charge that the workman produced forged document to claim L.T.C. amount has been proved by the Enquiry Officer, which has not been disputed nor altered by the Pre