Judicial review ensures fair treatment and compliance with natural justice, allowing interference only when findings are perverse or unsupported by evidence.

JUDGMENT :

C.Kumarappan, J.

Assailing the order of the learned Single Judge in W.P. No. 34272 of 2013, the instant Writ Appeal has been filed by the Management.

2. The brief facts, which give rise to the instant Writ Appeal are that, the second respondent herein, who was a Conductor, was served with a charge memorandum dated 10.04.2006, for the alleged misconduct of re-issuance of sold tickets, and for possession of an excess sum of Rs. 315/- in his cash bag. The management, on conclusion of the enquiry, found that the charges framed against the second respondent were proved, and ultimately ordered his termination vide order dated 07.09.2006.

3. In pursuance thereof, the second respondent raised an Industrial dispute before the Labour Court, Salem in I.D.P.No.20 of 2007. The Labour Court, after appreciating the law and evidence, found that the charge of re-issuance of the tickets could not be established, as the punching of tickets probabilize the impossibility of re-issuance. The Labour Court further held that the charge, would have been framed based upon the inadvertent defective entry in the invoice copy. The Labour Court also held that, the possession of Rs. 315/- cannot be considered as misappropriated amount, as even according to the appellant, the second respondent had reissued two rupees tickets, to 26 persons and collected only Rs. 52/-. Further, the Labour Court took cognizance of the fact that, on the date of the surprise check, the appellant had paid overtime wages and batta to the second respondent, and that there was every possibility that the excess amount, would belong to him. Consequently, the Labour Court set aside the order of termination and directed the appellant to reinstate the petitioner without back wages, but with continuity of service.

4. Assailing the said order, the appellant preferred the impugned Writ Petition, wherein, the learned Single Judge found no perversity in the Labour Court's order, eventually dismissed the Writ Petition. Not satisfied with the order of the learned Single Judge, the Management has preferred the instant Writ Appeal.

5. Heard Mr. M. Aswin, the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Management, and Mr. K.Nagarajan, learned counsel for the second respondent.

6. Mr. M.Aswin, learned counsel for the petitioner would vehemently contend that the Labour Court, as well as the learned Single Judge, failed to take cognizance of the second respondent's previous conduct, and the gravity of the charges. He would further contend that, the non-examination of the passengers to whom the sold tickets were re-issued, cannot be put against the Management, as those passengers had given signed complaints to the Management's witness, and in view of the same, the non examination of those passengers will in no way cause any dent in the Management's case. He would further contend that the records of the checking Inspector was proved through the Management's witness. It is in this background, he would submit that the finding of the Labour Court is perverse.

7. Contending contra, Mr. K. Nagarajan, learned counsel for the second respondent, would contend that the Labour Court, after thorough appreciation of the evidence, found that the charge of re-issuance of sold ticket has not been established, as the punching of the alleged resold tickets indicates the impossibility of such re-issuance. He would further contend that the Labour Court has also found that those tickets could not have been issued prior to the inspection, and the issue could have arisen on account of defective entry made in the invoice copy. It is his further submission that such factual findings of the Labour Court could not be interfered with under Writ jurisdiction, unless such findings are perverse.

7.1. Mr. K. Nagarajan further contended that the availability of the excess amount of Rs. 315/- was also justified, as the second respondent was provided with batta and overtime charges in the date of inspection. In view of the above, he wo