The judgment establishes the limited scope of interference by the High Court with the findings of the Labour Court and emphasizes that the High Court cannot reappreciate the evidence to arrive at a contrary conclusion.

ORDER :

D. Murugesan, J.—The petitioner is the management of Blue Star Ltd., Chennai. The second respondent was dismissed from service for certain alleged misconducts and at his instance, a dispute was raised which was adjudicated in Industrial Dispute No. 979 of 1991 by the First Additional Labour Court, Chennai. By award, dated July 24, 1995, the order of dismissal was set aside with a direction to the writ-petitioner to reinstate the second respondent in service with full back wages, continuity of service and other attendant benefits. Questioning the said award, the management has filed this writ petition.

2. Though the High Court while exercising its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, does not constitute itself as appellate authority over the award of the Tribunal to reappreciate the evidence and come to a different conclusion, considering the nature of lengthy arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner, by drawing attention of this Court to the evidence, the following facts are necessarily to be stated only to find out as to whether the findings of the Labour Court is perverse.

3. The second respondent was employed as A.C. & R Mechanic in the writ petitioner's factory at Chennai. A charter of demands was submitted by the union during December, 1989 in which the second respondent was an active member. The writ petitioner management did not agree for the demands and started issuing charge-sheets and memos to the executive committee members. In fact, an enquiry was conducted into some charges against one Haribabu, one of the co-employees on March 28, 1989 in the material department of the writ-petitioner factory. It was alleged that the second respondent along with 40 other employees unauthorisedly entered the material department at 10 A.M. on March 28, 1989, neglecting the work and started shouting slogans against the management. In that way, the second respondent caused nuisance and disturbance to the normal work of the material department. In view of the above, the domestic enquiry conducted against the co-employee Haribabu could not be proceeded with and the enquiry officer, Presiding Officer and witnesses had to move out of the room. It was also alleged that the second respondent assaulted Presiding Officer, who happened, to be the Assistant Manager of the company by pushing him with hands. A charge-sheet, dated April 4, 1989, was issued to the second respondent. Not satisfied with the explanation offered by the employee/second respondent, an enquiry was ordered. The report of the enquiry, dated January 27, 1990, was filed wherein the misconduct alleged against the second respondent was found proved. A second show-cause notice, dated March 20, 1990, was also issued proposing the punishment of dismissal. The explanation to the said second show-cause notice was not acceptable to the management and hence the order of dismissal was passed on May 16, 1990.

4. On the above factual background Sri S. Ravindran, learned counsel appearing for the writ-petitioner management submitted that though in the enquiry strict rule of evidence is not applicable, when the findings of the Labour Court is not supported by evidence, such findings should be construed as perverse and it should be interfered with by this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

5. In order to sustain the above submission, the learned counsel extensively relied upon the enquiry proceedings. According to the learned counsel, the evidence of one Krishnamoorthy M. W. 1, who gave the complaint coupled with the evidence of one Bhat M.W.2 and one Menon M.W.3 amply prove that the second respondent along with 40 other employees "entered into the material department of the petitioner's factory and have not only shouted slogans against the management, but, also caused nuisance and disturbance to the normal work, in addition to disturbance to the enquiry which was being conducted in the premises against another employee. He