1. By the petition under Article 226 of the Constitution the petitioner, State Bank of India through its Chief General Manager had prayed for issue of a writ of certiorari for purposes of quashing the order dated 16-6-1977 passed by the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Jabalpur, in a reference made by the Government of India in the Ministry or Labour, By the said order the action of the Management of State Bank of India, Mandla Branch in discharging the watchman Nannhelal from service had been set aside and the delinquent had been ordered to be reinstated with all back-wages and other benefits.

Held : the first contention of the learned counsel was that the Tribunal having held that the domestic enquiry was proper and no principle of natural justice was violated, it had no jurisdiction to give its findings on the charges on the basis of the enquiry conducted by the management and set aside the findings of the Domestic Enquiry Officer without giving fresh opportunity to the management to lead evidence to prove the alleged misconduct. The proviso of section 11-A of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947, in the opinion of this Court completely negatives the submission of the counsel. Therefore, this Court has no hesitation in holding that the Tribunal committed no error of jurisdiction in deciding the matter on the basis of the evidence recorded in the domestic enquiry. Workman of F.T. and R. Co. v. Management, AIR 1973 SC 1227, R.K. Nair v. The General Manager, Bhilai Steel Plant and another, 1977 [I] WN 556 = 1977 JLJ 792 relied on.

2. The second contention of the learned counsel was that the respondent No. 2 acted wrongly in holding that the evidence of the Branch Manager could not be relied upon. It would suffice to mention in this regard that this Court under its prerogative power would not exercise the jurisdiction of an appellate Court in appreciating the evidence of a witness for purposes of coming to another conclusion differing from the one arrived at by a competent Tribunal. To rely or not to rely on the evidence of the Branch Manager was clearly within the jurisdiction of the, respondent No. 2. Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court Jabalpur, and no grievance is permissible to be entertained in that regard in the present proceedings if the evidence of the said officer was not relied upon by the respondent No. 2.

3. The third contention was that the respondent No. 2 could not set aside the order of discharge on the ground that it was not proved in this case that vouchers of 29th September 1972 were burnt by respondent No. 1. The finding in this regard is finding of fact not open to challenge in the present proceedings as the said finding has been arrived at the competent Tribunal who had jurisdiction to come to a conclusion in that regard. Petition dismissed.