The court cannot re-appreciate the evidence and reach different conclusions on findings of fact by the Tribunal.

1. Aggrieved by the award of the Labour Court both management as well as workmen have approached this Court by way of two Writ Petitions, challenging the same award. Therefore both the Writ Petitions are dealt with by this common order. For the sake of convenience the petitioner in writ petition No. 19232 of 2003 is described as “petitioner” and the second respondent, in the said writ petition is the management which would be described as “management” hereafter.

2. It is the case of the petitioner that he was employed as Jewel Appraiser by the Management. While functioning as Jewel Appraiser, it is stated that the petitioner forged thumb impression of his mother and availed the jewel loan from the Bank. Therefore a charge memo was issued to the petitioner on 21.11.1991, for which an explanation was given on 30.03.1992. Pending enquiry he was kept and under suspension. After enquiry, the enquiry officer submitted a report holding that the charges against the petitioner was proved. Thereafter, a second Show Cause Notice was given and explanation was obtained from the petitioner and the petitioner was terminated from service on 05.09.1996. Petitioner raised an industrial dispute before the Labour Officer, Salem and failure reported was submitted. Thereafter the petitioner preferred a claim before the Tribunal challenging his termination from service. The Labour Court framed Preliminary issue regarding the validity of the domestic enquiry and answered it in favour of the petitioner. Therefore the Management was called upon to prove the charges.

3. After considering the pleadings and evidence on record the Labour Court came to the conclusion that charges against the petitioner was not proved and held that the original document said to have been executed by the petitioner admitting his was not produced and no explanation was given as to why it was not produced and that there is no chance of availing the Jewel loan without counter signature from the two members of the society and that the official who gave the complaint, withdrew the complaint subsequently. The labour Court making certain observations regarding the conduct of the petitioner, re-instated the petitioner in service without to the denial back wages and filed Writ Petition No. 19232 of 2003 and Questioning petitioner’s re-instatement, the management filed W.P. No. 38927 of 2002.

4. The learned counsel for the management submitted that the second respondent society is a Banking Institution and the petitioner is a Jewel Appraiser, for which absolute integrity is required. The Tribunal found that Ex. M2 letter got no evidentially value but still found that the petitioner could not deny that such letter was not given by him. The petitioner only contended that under threat and coercion the letter was executed by him. When such an admission was made by the petitioner and the Tribunal also found that the document could not said to have been executed by the petitioner and the Labour court ought to have re-instated the petitioner. He also relied upon the judgment of this Court in Management of Catholic Syrian Bank Limited Vs. Industrial Tribunal, Madras – 104 and another.

5. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the petitioner/workman submitted that the Tribunal discussed the evidence in detail and based on evidence, came to the categorical conclusion that the charges against the petitioner was not proved. It also relied upon the evidence extensively and also documentary evidence and thereafter only, it rightly came to the conclusion that Ex.M2 has no evidentially value. When the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the termination of the petitioner is invalid, it ought to have re-instated the petitioner with back wages. He relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in H.S. Chandra Shekra Chari Vs. Divisional Controller, KSRTC and another reported in (1999) 4 Supreme Court Cases 611 and contended that disallowing back wages is illegal. He relied upon