JUDGMENT : Sanjay Prasad, J. This writ petition has been filed on behalf of the Management Company in the nature of Certiorari for quashing the Judgment dated 21.02.2006 (pronounced on 16.03.2006) passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Jamshedpur in Reference Case No. 20 of 1995 whereby and whereunder the termination of the concerned workman has been held to be not valid and accordingly direction for payment of wages for seventeen months from the date of his termination till his notional date of superannuation with all consequential benefits has been directed to be paid and/or for issuance of such other writ(s), order(s) or direction(s) as this Hon’ble Court may think just. 2. Heard Mr. Rajiv Ranjan, learned Sr. Counsel for the Petitioner-Company and Mr. Manish Kumar, learned counsel for the Workman- Respondent. 3. It reveals from the ordersheet of this Court that though the above writ application was filed in the year 2006 and on 05.09.2006 notice was issued upon the Respondent by the Co-ordinate Bench (Justice Narendra Nath Tiwari, as His Lordship then was) of this Court, but requisites were not filed for a long period for a fresh notice and finally on 05.09.2007 time was granted to the petitioner to take steps for service of Notice by peremptory order by the Co-ordinate Bench (Justice Amareshwar Sahay, as His Lordship then was), then the matter was heard in part on 03.08.2010 by the Co-ordinate Bench (Justice Pradeep Kumar, as then His Lordship was) of this Court, however, it was fixed on 04.08.2010, but the matter was not placed and then it was placed for the first time on 18.06.2019 before the Co-ordinate Bench (Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajesh Kumar) of this Court. However, the matter was adjourned on 11.06.2019 and 18.06.2019 on the joint prayer of the parties. Even on 24.07.2019 and 20.08.2019 adjournment was taken on behalf of the petitioner and the case was fixed on 29.08.2019. However, the record reveals that thereafter, the case was placed on 08.12.2020 during Covid-19 pandemic period and then on 24.03.2021 this writ petition was admitted by the Co-ordinate bench (Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ananda Sen) of this Court, however, Notice was issued upon the sole Respondent although the learned counsel for the Respondent had already appeared on several dates as mentioned above. Justice Ananda Sen) of this Court, however, Notice was issued upon the sole Respondent although the learned counsel for the Respondent had already appeared on several dates as mentioned above. On 24.03.2021 the Impugned Award dated 21.02.2006 passed in Reference Case No. 20 of 1995 was directed not to be given effect to. Thereafter, the matter was placed on 11.06.2024 before the Hon’ble Co-ordinate Bench (Hon’ble Mrs. Justice Anubha Rawat Choudhary) of this Court and the matter was placed on 01.07.2024, however, on 01.07.2024 the Co- ordinate Bench (Hon’ble Mrs. Justice Anubha Rawat Choudhary) recused herself from hearing this writ petition. Thereafter, this matter was placed before this Court for the first time on 31.07.2024. On that day the learned counsel for both sides have completed their arguments, however, from going through the records of this case it appears that Lower Court Record was not called for by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court. This Court has also not called for the Lower Court Records considering the fact that the petitioner company has enclosed all the documents, which runs from Page 24 to 208. Thus, this Court is not aware as to what happened after 13.09.2002 as even the learned counsel for the petitioner has not enclosed the ordersheet after 13.09.2002 till before passing of the impugned judgment/Award dated 21.02.2006. This Court also remained under the impression that the entire things have been enclosed by the petitioner while filing the writ petition in this case with all the documents, but the ordersheet prior to 13.09.2002 after institution of Reference Case No. 20 of 1995 has not been brought on record and nor the ordersheets after 13.09.2002 have been brought on record. However, in order to pass order this Court did not call for the Lower Court Record as it would not be proper to call for the Lower Court Record at this stage to see the ordersheets and objections filed by the workman respondent, if any at this stage. 4. It is submitted by the learned Sr. Counsel for the petitioner that the impugned Award dated 21.02.2006 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Jamshedpur in Reference Case No. 20 of 1995 is illegal, arbitrary and not sustainable in law. It is submitted that the impugned Award dated 21.02.2006 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Jamshedpur is perverse and vitiated. Counsel for the petitioner that the impugned Award dated 21.02.2006 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Jamshedpur in Reference Case No. 20 of 1995 is illegal, arbitrary and not sustainable in law. It is submitted that the impugned Award dated 21.02.2006 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Jamshedpur is perverse and vitiated. It is submitted that the question of fairness of domestic enquiry held by the petitioner-Management was taken as a preliminary issue and after consideration of the documents on record and the petition of the parties, vide order dated 13.09.2002, the learned Labour Court, Jamshedpur, decided the issue in favour of the petitioner- Management by holding that there was no material before the Enquiry Officer for absolving the workman of the charges of misconduct levelled against him. The workman was given ample opportunities and he availed of those opportunities to defend himself properly at the enquiry. The management conducted a fair and proper enquiry against the workman and the report of the enquiry officer is based on the materials on record and reasonable, however, the learned Labour Court, inspite of above fact that domestic enquiry was held fair and proper, has passed the impugned Award by giving direction for payment of wages for seventeen months from the date of his termination till his notional date of superannuation with all consequential benefits. It is submitted that the learned Labour Court, at Paragraph-9, has held that by order dated 13th September, 2002, Domestic Enquiry conducted by the management was found to be fair and proper against the workman and the report of the Enquiry Officer was found based on the materials available on record. But, thereafter, the learned Labour Court proceeded to re-appreciate the entire evidence before the Enquiry Officer in domestic enquiry and on scrutiny of the enquiry report and the documents produced therein, has reversed the findings of the enquiry officer which is impermissible in law. Thus, the learned Labour Court has thus posed wrong questions to itself and has thus come to wrong conclusions. It is submitted that after holding enquiry to be fair and proper, it was not open to the learned Labour Court to re-Appreciate the entire evidence produced before the enquiry officer nor can it come to a different conclusion then that of the Enquiry Officer. It is submitted that after holding enquiry to be fair and proper, it was not open to the learned Labour Court to re-Appreciate the entire evidence produced before the enquiry officer nor can it come to a different conclusion then that of the Enquiry Officer. It is submitted that the charge against the workman was of theft of Company’s property which is very grave and serious and deserves the punishment of dismissal from the services. It is submitted that the learned Labour Court cannot sit in appeal against the findings of the enquiry officer nor can it disagree from the findings after holding the domestic enquiry to be fair and proper. It is submitted that the Workman-Respondent came with completely new story that he brought the recovered materials on the instructions of Shri R.C. Sinha to cut them into pieces for making nipples to measure pressure of gas which has specifically been denied by Shri R.C. Sinha who was examined in the enquiry as an independent witness. He has stated that the concerned workman was never given instruction to prepare nipples nor any copper pipe or brass materials were supplied to him. It is submitted that the concerned workman being involved in theft of Company’s property amounts to loss of confidence from the Company and thus, no order of reinstatement or payment of all consequential benefits can be passed by the learned Labour Court. It is submitted that the concerned Workman committed misconduct of dishonesty and theft of the Company’s property and it has specifically come in the evidence before the enquiry officer that for a same and similar charge, he was punished in the past and keeping in view his past misconduct and service record, the punishment of dismissal from services was awarded against him, hence the impugned Award may be set aside and the punishment of the Disciplinary Authority may be restored. 5. In support of his contention, learned Senior Counsel has relied upon certain judgments which are as follows:- (i) Kapra Mazdoor Ekta Union -Vs.- Birla Cotton Spinning & Weaving Mills Ltd. , reported in (2005) 13 SCC 777 , at Para 19 (ii) Management of M/s Usha Breco and another Vs. Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Jamshedpur and Another reported in 2004 (4) L.L.N. 1066 , at Para 3 , 4 and 5 (iii) TATA Engineering and Locomotive Co. Ltd. Vs. Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Jamshedpur and Another reported in 2004 (4) L.L.N. 1066 , at Para 3 , 4 and 5 (iii) TATA Engineering and Locomotive Co. Ltd. Vs. N.K. Singh reported in (2006) 12 SCC 554 , at Para 6 and 10 Hence, this writ petition may be allowed. 6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the Workman-Respondent submitted that the impugned Award dated 21.02.2006, passed by the learned Labour Court is fit and proper and no interference is required from this Court. It is submitted that there is no illegality or perversity in the impugned Award and as such, this Court may not interfere into the impugned Award passed by the learned Labour Court below. It is submitted that the learned Labour Court has given clear reasoning while passing the impugned award after looking into the documents relating to the Disciplinary Proceeding of the Workman-Respondent and has appreciated properly all the materials on record. It is submitted that the Workman has been victimized by the Management as the Workman was supposed to retire within 17 months from his service and he was also entitled for consideration of job of his son in the Petitioner-Company, but due to the chargesheet and domestic enquiry he was terminated/dismissed from his services without any fault on his part. It is submitted that the evidence of the Management-Witnesses, i.e. MW-1 and MW-2, namely R.B. Pathak, Deputy Manager and Asstt.Manager (Personnel) are not reliable. It is submitted that the documents marked as M/1 to M/6 are the documents of the Management and they cannot be relied upon in the case of the Workman/Respondent. It is submitted that the documents of the Management did not prove the case conclusively against the Workman-Respondent, but punishment against this workman was maintained, whereas Natha Singh, who was the main culprit and was arrested at the factory gate along with stolen articles was taken back in the service of the company and two other workmen, namely Amulya and Kalu were also taken back in the services of the company, which shows the policy of discrimination adopted by the Company. 7. It is also pointed out that even copy of the Enquiry Proceeding and Enquiry Report were not handed over by the Divisional Manager (Coke Ovens) to the Workman-Respondent and thus, Enquiry was committed in gross violation of the principles of natural justice. 8. 7. It is also pointed out that even copy of the Enquiry Proceeding and Enquiry Report were not handed over by the Divisional Manager (Coke Ovens) to the Workman-Respondent and thus, Enquiry was committed in gross violation of the principles of natural justice. 8. It has been pointed out that the Authority/Officer communicating the order of discharge were not the Disciplinary Authority competent under Standing Order of the Company and hence the action taken by the petitioner-Company is not tenable. 9. It has also been submitted that the Workman was in continuous employment and he served for a good number of years to get his son registered for employment as per the right given by the Standing Order of the petitioner Company and the petitioner-Company did not consider the length of temporary service of the Workman. It is submitted that neither any article was seized from the bag of the Workman-Respondent nor any article was recovered at his instance by the Petitioner-Management or its officials. Thus, impugned Award dated 21.02.2006, passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Jamshedpur is fit and proper. 10. In support of his contention, learned counsel for the Workman-Respondent placed reliance upon the following judgments:- (i) Workmen V. Firestone Tyre and Rubber Co. reported in (1973) 1 SCC 813 , at Para 47 and 53 (ii) The General Secretary, South Indian Cashew Factories Worker’s Union Versus The Managing Director, Kerala State Cashew Development Corporation Ltd. reported in (2006) 4 SCC 281, at Para 16 :- 11. It is submitted that the Enquiry Officer was biased against the Workman-Respondent. It is submitted that the learned Labour Court while passing the Award has appreciated the evidence adduced during enquiry properly, hence in view of the above, this writ petition may be dismissed. 12. Perused the records of the learned Labour Court and also the record of domestic enquiry, which have been enclosed by the petitioner as Annexure 3 Series to this writ petition (and which starts from Page 37 to 204 of this writ petition) and also the Written Statement filed by the Workmen- Respondent (which starts from Page 24 to 30, i.e. Annexure-1) and also perused the Written Statement filed by the petitioner-Management (which starts at Page 31 to 36) i.e. Annexure-2 to the writ petition after the Enquiry Report) and considered the submission of both sides. 13. 13. It transpires from the records and documents enclosed with this writ petition and also the Written Statement filed by the Management- Petitioner (enclosed as Annexure-2 to the writ petition) that the Workman-Respondent was found to have committed theft of company’s property on 08.12.1991/09.12.1991 along with three other Workmen. 14. Thereafter, Workman-Respondent was issued chargesheet dated 11.12.1991 for theft and dishonesty in connection with Company’s property. The charges levelled against the Workman-Respondent read as follows:- “You are hereby asked to show cause why disciplinary action should not be taken against you for the following act which amounts to misconduct within the meaning of Standing Order No. 23, for which you are liable to be punished under Standing Order No. 24 of the Works Standing Orders. On 9.12.91, you were in ‘E’ shift (From 7.00 am to 11.30 am and 2.30 pm to 4.00 pm) duty and were working in Old Batteries (Mechanical). It has been reported that at about 12.30 p.m. on 9.12.91 you were caught red handed by security staff while cutting copper pipes belonging to the company at Ammonia Sulphate Plant, Coke Ovens Dept. with an intention to steal the same. Further about 11 kgs of copper pipes, nozzles were also recovered from your tool box (in your presence) in Ammonia Sulphate Plant, Coke Ovens Dept. with an intention to steal the same. You are allowed 48 hours from the date of receipt hereof to give your explanation. Any representation that you may make in this connection will be taken into consideration before passing orders.” 15. The Workman replied as follows:- “Sir, It is true that on 9.12.91, I was in E Shift from 7 AM to 11.30 AM and 12.30 PM to 4 PM) duty and was working in old batteries (Mechanical). It is also correct that on 9.12.91 at 12.30 PM I was found cutting copper pipes belonging to the company at Ammonia sulphate Plant, Coke Ovens Dept, but it is totally absurd to even think of that my intention was to steal the same. I had no idea at all to steal the materials in question. In fact I was doing so under good faith at the request of the co-worker Natha Singh of M.S.S., who had given the material to me to cut the same. It is also totally false to allege that about 11 kgs. I had no idea at all to steal the materials in question. In fact I was doing so under good faith at the request of the co-worker Natha Singh of M.S.S., who had given the material to me to cut the same. It is also totally false to allege that about 11 kgs. of Copper pipes, nozzles were also recovered from my tool box in Ammonia Sulphate. This is my reply to the chargesheet is as above” 16. However, the explanation of the Workman-Respondent was not found satisfactory. 17. Thereafter, vide Office Order dated 11.12.1991, one R.B. Pathak, Manager (P), attached to Coke Ovens Department was appointed as Enquiry Officer, whereas one K.M. Mishra, Inspector, Security Works was appointed as Management Representative for holding the enquiry. 18. It further reveals that the Management, during the course of domestic enquiry, had examined Six witnesses, who are as follows: (i) MW-I is Shri K.M. Mishra, Security(W), the M.R. &, (ii) MW-II is Shri K.K. Ojha, Sepoy Security (W)-MW II (iii) MW-III is Sheomuni Ram, Sub-Inspector Scurity (W) (iv) MW-IV is Jaswant Kumar, Dy. Manager, Elect. (Opn.) G1, (v) MW-V is J. Sanga, Sepoy Security (W) -MW V (vi) MW- VI is S.K. Banerjee, Genl. Foreman, Coke Ovens. 19. However, it appears that during domestic enquiry only one witness, namely Shri Baldeo Mukhi was examined on behalf of the Workman-Respondent. 20. Thereafter, the Enquiry Officer submitted his enquiry report to the Management by holding the Workman-Respondent guilty of the charges levelled against him. Thereafter, the Management concurred with the finding of the Enquiry Officer and decided to discharge the Workman-Respondent from the services of the Company. 21. However, before awarding punishment of discharge, the Workman-Respondent was allowed to submit his representation against the proposed punishment of discharge, if any. 22. Then, the Workman submitted his reply by way of representation and it was also considered by the Management. 23. However, the Management did not find reply of the Workman-Respondent satisfactory and as such the Workman was discharged with effect from 29.04.1992 on the ground of committing misconduct of theft and dishonesty in connection with the Company’s properties. 24. 22. Then, the Workman submitted his reply by way of representation and it was also considered by the Management. 23. However, the Management did not find reply of the Workman-Respondent satisfactory and as such the Workman was discharged with effect from 29.04.1992 on the ground of committing misconduct of theft and dishonesty in connection with the Company’s properties. 24. Against his above termination, the Workman-Respondent raised Industrial Dispute and the Government of Bihar, in the department of Labour Employment and Training vide their Notification No. 4/D2-1402/95 L&E-358 dated 31.05.1995 had referred the said industrial dispute to the learned Labour Court, Jamshedpur for adjudication specifying a period of three months for making an award. 25. The Terms of Reference reads as follows:- “Whether the termination of Services of Shri Bir Bahadoor, workman, T.No.83330, M/s Tata Iron & Steel Company Limited, Jamshedpur on the charge of theft is proper? If not, what relief the workman is entitled to?” 26. Thereafter, the Management filed Written Statement and it has been stated in the Written Statement of the Management-Petitioner that the Enquiry Officer has conducted the enquiry in accordance with the principles of natural justice and allowed all opportunities to the workman to defend himself and the workman has raised no grievance or any objection against the Enquiry Officer during domestic enquiry. It has also been stated that earlier also the Workman was found guilty for committing the same misconduct of theft and dishonesty with respect to Company’s property. Thus, there is no illegality and discrimination by the Management against the Workman. 27. However, the Management in its written statement has stated that during the month of December, 1991 the Workman-Respondent was working as Mill Wright in the Coke Oven Department of the Company and on 09.12.1991, the Workman was found committing theft of properties of the Company along with Three others. 28. The Workman also filed a written statement stating therein that he was served with the chargesheet dated 11.12.1991 with charge of theft and dishonesty in connection with Company’s property, which was said to be misconduct, however, the said charges were misconceived, incorrect and without any basis. It has been stated that three other employees, namely Natha Singh (T. No. 191726), Amulya (T. No. 80115) and Kalu (T.No. 84633) were also issued respective chargesheets in connection with the same allegations. It has been stated that three other employees, namely Natha Singh (T. No. 191726), Amulya (T. No. 80115) and Kalu (T.No. 84633) were also issued respective chargesheets in connection with the same allegations. It is stated that the Workman-Respondent has submitted explanation to the chargesheet, but it was not properly considered. 29. It has also been pointed out in the Written Statement that the Workman-Respondent has not been furnished with the copy of the complaint, if any, on the basis of which the Divisional Manager (Coke Ovens) has issued chargesheet to the Workman-Respondent. Even another officer, i.e. General Manager (Works) issued an Office Order dated 23.12.1991 by saying that the explanation submitted by all the Four Workmen including the present Workman-Respondent, were not satisfactory. Even the General Manager, who was not the chargesheet issuing authority, had appointed one Shri R.B. Pathak, Manager (P) as the Enquiry Officer in respect of chargesheet issued to the workmen, i.e. the Workman-Respondent and also three other Workmen as named above. It is stated that the enquiry conducted by the Enquiry Officer was not proper and the Enquiry Officer deprived the Workman-Respondent of valuable opportunity to defend himself and in violation of principles of natural justice. 30. It is stated that the Workman was not an educated person and he could sign somehow and he was unable to read and write Hindi and English and with great difficulty he could read some of the printed matters of Hindi. The Workman-Respondent had put his signature on the advice of the Enquiry Officer in good faith without knowing the fact that as to what was being recorded by the Enquiry Officer. The Enquiry Office did not fairly conduct the enquiry and the Workman-Respondent had also shown his apprehension and made protest to the Enquiry Officer with a copy to the Managing Director. Then, on the basis of defective enquiry proceeding and perverse report and findings the Divisional Manager (Coke Ovens) issued a letter dated 17.04.1992 informing the Workman if he was satisfied and has agreed with the finding of the Enquiry Officer. The Management disclosed his mind for giving proposal for discharge of the Workman-Respondent from services of the Steel Company and asked him to make representation against the same. 31. The Management disclosed his mind for giving proposal for discharge of the Workman-Respondent from services of the Steel Company and asked him to make representation against the same. 31. It also transpires that the Management, in support of its case, had examined two witnesses before the Labour Court, who are as follows:- (i) MW-1 is Shri R.B. Pathak &, (ii) MW-2 is Shri Asit Kumar Verma. 32. The Management had also got marked certain documents as the Exhibits before the Labour Court, which are as follows:- (i)Ext.M is the original appointment letter of Enquiry Officer, (ii)Ext.M/1 is the carbon copy of Notice of enquiry, (iii)Ext.M/2 is the chargesheet with explanation, (iv)Ext.M/4 is enquiry report, (v) Ext.M/5 is photo attested copy of extract of minutes of Board or Directors meeting dated 21.11.1974 and (vi) Ext.M/6 is the photo attested copy of letter dated 25 th November, 1976. 33. It further appears from record that the delinquent Workman Bir Bahadur was examined as Workman’s witness as WW-1before the Labour Court. 34. From perusal of the Enquiry Report, it transpires that on 09.12.1991 while the Workman- Respondent No.2 was in E-shift duty from 7.00 a.m. to 11.30 a.m. and 12.30 p.m. to 04.00 p.m. and at about 12.30 p.m., he was caught red handed by the Security staff while cutting copper pipes belonging to the Company at Ammonium Sulphate Plant of Coke Ovens Department with an intention to steal the same. He was also charged that 11 kg of copper pipes, Nozzles were also recovered from his Tool box in his presence which he has kept for stealing. 35. The Workman had replied that though he was cutting copper pipe on 09.12.1991, at 12.30 p.m., but it is absurd to think that his intention was to steal the same. He further stated that he was cutting the material in good faith of Shri Natha Singh, who had given the material to him to cut. He had also denied that 11 kg. of copper pipes, nozzles were recovered from his Tool Box. 36. However, from perusal of charges and reply of said Natha Singh, it reveals that while he was going home on 09.12.1991 for lunch after duty in General Shift duty from 07.00 a.m. to 04.00 p.m. then he was caught red handed stealing 10 kg. of copper pipes, nozzles were recovered from his Tool Box. 36. However, from perusal of charges and reply of said Natha Singh, it reveals that while he was going home on 09.12.1991 for lunch after duty in General Shift duty from 07.00 a.m. to 04.00 p.m. then he was caught red handed stealing 10 kg. of copper wire concealed in a cotton bag at the Burma Mines gate of the company at 11.50 a.m. 37. However, in reply said Natha Singh stated that on 09.12.1991, he had taken alcohol and as such he was not in his senses and when he reached Burma Mines Gate, then he was stopped there and taken to the Security Control Room where he signed a written statement under the threat of being beaten. 38. Whereas Shri Amulya was charged that he was present at Ammonium Sulphate Plant on 09.12.1991 at around 12.30 p.m. then the Workman- Respondent was caught red handed by the Security Staff while cutting copper wire. But in reply Shri Amulya stated that while he was taking rest in the Big Hall of Ammonium Sulphate Plant then he demanded Tobacco from Shri Kalu and in absence of Tobacco both of them went to Shri Bir Bahadur-Respondent and in the meantime Security People came there. He denied for not arranging copper, Brass and other materials and supplying them to Bir Bahadur-Workman-Respondent. 39. Shri Kalu was also charged that he was also present at 12.30 p.m. when Shri Bir Bahadur - Workman-Respondent was caught red handed. Shri Kalu was also charged for arranging and supplying copper, brass and other materials to Bir Bahadur and in connivance with him and Shri Amulya he was stealing the material of the company. Shri Kalu denied the charges by stating that Shri Amulya came to him and asked for Tobacco from him during rest hours and both of them went to Workman-Bir Bahadur for taking Tobacco and after taking Tobacco both of them sat there. 40. The Enquiry officer, at Page 8, concluded that Natha Singh was caught red handed at about 11.50 a.m. on 09.12.1991 at Burma Mines Gate while stealing 10 kg. of copper coil concealed in a cotton bag by Security Sepoy on duty amounting to theft of company’s property. 41. 40. The Enquiry officer, at Page 8, concluded that Natha Singh was caught red handed at about 11.50 a.m. on 09.12.1991 at Burma Mines Gate while stealing 10 kg. of copper coil concealed in a cotton bag by Security Sepoy on duty amounting to theft of company’s property. 41. The enquiry officer on the basis of evidence of M.W.1-Shri K.M. Mishra, M.W.2-Shri K.M. Ojha, M.W.3-Shri Sheo Mani Ram, M.W.4-Shri Jaswant Kumar and M.W.-6 concluded at page 13 that the Workman Bir Bahadur Singh was cutting copper pipes into pieces at Ammonium Sulphate Plant with an intention to steal the same and 11 kg. of copper pipes, nozzles and electrical coils were recovered in his presence on 09.12.1991 at 12.30 p.m. The enquiry officer also concluded against Shri Amulya and Shri Kalu. After analyzing the statement of management witnesses as well as the statement of co-workmen, the enquiry officer-Shri R.B. Pathak held at Page 16-17 the charges against Shri Amulya and Shri Kalu as proved as they were present while Shri Bir Bahadur–Workman-Respondent of Coke Ovens Department was caught red handed cutting copper pipes by the Security staff at Ammonium sulphate Plant. 42. The plea of the Workman, that he was unable to understand Hindi and English and had put his signature on the advice of the Enquiry Office in good faith, is not tenable because he has replied to the chargesheet written in English. 43. It transpires that it is the case of the Management that the Workman Shri Bir Bahadur was posted at Coke Ovens Plant but he was apprehended at Ammonium Sulphate Plant for cutting copper, Brass in connivance with Shri Amulya and Shir Kalu and connivance of Shri Natha Singh was also found as he was caught red handed with 10 Kg. copper by the Security Sepoy at the Burma Mines Gate. 44. It transpires from the record received from the Labour Court that vide order dated 13.09.2002 the Presiding Officer had held that domestic enquiry, conducted by the Management, was fair and proper. Therefore, learned Presiding Officer, Labour Court should have refrained itself from re-appreciating the evidence recorded before the Enquiry Officer in the domestic enquiry. 45. The Labour Court has further held that a careful scrutiny of the enquiry report, it is found that the enquiry officer has used the statement of another delinquent Natha Singh against this Workman-Respondent to find him guilty. 45. The Labour Court has further held that a careful scrutiny of the enquiry report, it is found that the enquiry officer has used the statement of another delinquent Natha Singh against this Workman-Respondent to find him guilty. The Labour Court has further observed that the alleged 11 kg. of stolen material was kept in the tool box of Bir Bahadur, however Bir Bahadur from the very beginning had denied the recovery from his Locker. 46. The above finding of the Labour Court is completely illegal as the said statement of Natha Singh has led to recovery of 11 kg. of Copper from the tool box of the Workman-Respondent-Bir Bahadur and thus, the statement of Natha Singh has led to prove the case of the Management against the Workman. 47. Even Shri Natha Singh had confessed his guilt before the Management. 48. Mere denial of the Workman in his written statement that alleged 11 kg. of stolen material was kept in his Locker was not recovered till 12.30 p.m. is not sufficient. It is simply an ornamental denial of the charges, which were levelled against him. 49. It has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Management of M/s Usha Breco and another Vs. Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Jamshedpur and Another reported in 2004 (4) L.L.N. 1066 and TATA Engineering and Locomotive Co. Ltd. Vs. N.K. Singh reported in (2006) 12 SCC 554 that it is not open to the Labour Court/Industrial Tribunal to re-appreciate the evidence recorded during domestic enquiry when it is held that domestic enquiry was fair and proper. 50. The Hon’ble Division Bench of this High Court has held in the case of Management of M/s Usha Breco and another Vs. Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Jamshedpur and Another reported in 2004 (4) L.L.N. 1066 , at Para 3 , 4 and 5 as follows:- “ Para 3:- We find that in its order dated 16 August, 1990, the Labour Court held that the domestic enquiry had been conducted by the management in accordance with the principles of natural justice and the findings of the enquiry officer was on the basis of the evidence taken during the domestic enquiry. It was thus, that the domestic enquiry was found to be legal and valid. It was thus, that the domestic enquiry was found to be legal and valid. Once the domestic enquiry was so found to be legal and valid, it appears to us that it was not open to the Labour Court to canvass the question whether the findings at the domestic enquiry were correct or sustainable or not. In fact, In fact, the first question posed by the Labour Court to itself, in our view, is based on misconception of tis jurisdiction in the context of its finding, dated 16 August 1990. The question posed is “Whether the management had been able to prove the charges levelled against the workmen on the basis of the evidence available on record?” The Labour Court did not take any evidence or did not direct the management to adduce evidence before it, to sustain the charges framed against the workmen. Obviously, it was because of its own conclusion that the domestic enquiry was valid and proper. So, no occasion arose for the Labour Court to ask itself the question whether on the evidence, the charges have been proved. In fact, as we have earlier noted, the very holding on 16 August, 1990 was to the effect that the findings of the domestic enquiry was supported by the evidence taken at that enquiry. Thus, in our view, the Labour Court had asked itself a wrong question when it posed the first question for decision. Thereafter, it has proceeded to record a finding that the management has not proved the charges levelled against the workmen. When a Tribunal has asked itself a wrong question and even if it has answered that question correctly, it acts outside its jurisdiction attracting the certiorari jurisdiction of this Court (See Anisiminic). Here, the Labour Court has committed such an error of jurisdiction. Para 4:- Even while considering the quantum of punishment, the Labour Court has proceeded on the basis that the management has failed to prove the charges, levelled against the workmen. This again, in our view, is not the correct approach to the question, the Labour Court had to consider, in exercise of its jurisdiction under S.11A of the Industrial Disputes Act. The jurisdiction under S.11A of the Industrial Disputes Act was to consider whether on the charges proved and the punishment awarded was not reasonable or was too harsh. This again, in our view, is not the correct approach to the question, the Labour Court had to consider, in exercise of its jurisdiction under S.11A of the Industrial Disputes Act. The jurisdiction under S.11A of the Industrial Disputes Act was to consider whether on the charges proved and the punishment awarded was not reasonable or was too harsh. In that process, the Labour Court could have taken note of all the relevant materials on record. But, that would not mean that it could sit in appeal over the findings of the enquiry officer disagreeing to that finding and find the punishment to be disproportionate to the charges proved. Here, what has happened is that the Labour Court has actually found that no punishment was liable to be awarded since the charges against the workmen were not proved. The conclusion is directly against what has been found by the enquiry officer, at the enquiry, the validity of which had already been upheld by the Labour Court. Para 5:- In this situation, we are constrained to interfere withs the award passed by the Labour Court. In our view, the learned Single Judge was not justified in refusing to interfere with the award. We may notice that the learned Single Judge had not adverted to this aspect. We are, therefore, satisfied that LPA No. 348 of 2000(R) deserves to be allowed and the award of Labour Court deserves to be quashed and the matter remitted to the Labour Court for a fresh decision in accordance with law consistent with the finding, dated 16 th August, 1990, that the domestic enquiry was valid and proper and consistent with the power conferred on it under S.11A of the Industrial Disputes Act. In this view, we are satisfied that the appeal file by the Union has only to be dismissed. In the result, we allow L.P.A.No.348 of 2000 (R ) and setting aside the decision of the learned Single Judge in C.W.J.C. No. 3359 of 1992 (R ) quash the award of the Labour Court in Reference No.9 of 1985 and remit the reference to the Labour Court for a fresh decision in accordance with law, its finding on 16th August, 1990 and in the light of the observations made above. We dismiss L.P.A. No.9 of 2001(R ). L.P.A. No.348 of 2000(R) Allowed. L.P.A. No.9 of 2001(R) Dismissed.” 51. We dismiss L.P.A. No.9 of 2001(R ). L.P.A. No.348 of 2000(R) Allowed. L.P.A. No.9 of 2001(R) Dismissed.” 51. It has been held in the case of TATA Engineering and Locomotive Co. Ltd. Vs. N.K. Singh reported in (2006) 12 SCC 554 , at Para 6 and 10 as follows:- “Para 6:- By order dated 17-6-1995 the Labour Court decided the validity of the domestic inquiry conducted and held that the same was fair, proper and in accordance with the principles of natural justice. By order dated 5-1-1996 award was passed by the Labour Court setting aside the order of dismissal and directing the respondent's reinstatement with full back wages. Though it was held that the charge of misconduct levelled against the respondent was established, the order of dismissal was disproportionate to the charge proved. Therefore, reinstatement with payment of half of the back wages was directed. The appellant filed a writ petition before the High Court. Learned Single Judge partially allowed the writ petition directing that half of the back wages was to be paid from the date of award. As noted supra, letters patent appeal was dismissed. It was noted that one R.P. Singh who stood on identical footing was directed to be reinstated with half back wages. Para 10: - We find that the Labour Court has found the inquiry to be fair and proper. The conduct highlighted by the management and established in inquiry was certainly of a very grave nature. The Labour Court and the High Court have not found that misconduct was of any minor nature. On the contrary, the finding on facts that the acts complained of were established has not been disturbed. That being so, the leniency shown by the Labour Court is clearly unwarranted and would in fact encourage indiscipline. Without indicating any reason as to why it was felt that the punishment was disproportionate, the Labour Court should not have passed the order in the manner done. The case of R.P. Singh was not on a similar footing. He was one of the persons instigating whereas the respondent was the person who committed the acts. Therefore, the orders of the Labour Court as affirmed by the High Court cannot be sustained and are set aside. The order of dismissal from service in the disciplinary proceedings stand restored.” 52. He was one of the persons instigating whereas the respondent was the person who committed the acts. Therefore, the orders of the Labour Court as affirmed by the High Court cannot be sustained and are set aside. The order of dismissal from service in the disciplinary proceedings stand restored.” 52. Thus, it is evident that the Hon’ble Division Bench of Jharkhand High Court has already laid down the law that if the Tribunal/Labour Court has held that domestic enquiry was fair and proper then it is not open to the Labour Court/Industrial Tribunal to reappreciate the evidence on merit and the Labour Court cannot sit in appeal. The Division Bench had set aside the Award in Management of M/s Usha Breco and another Vs. Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Jamshedpur and Another 53. Even the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of TATA Engineering and Locomotive Co. Ltd. Vs. N.K. Singh reported in (2006) 12 SCC 554 has also held that once the Labour Court has found that the domestic enquiry was fair and proper then it should not have interfered with the order of dismissal. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has restored the order of dismissal in the said case. 54. From the perusal of the impugned judgment (i.e. Award) it reveals that on the interrogation of Shri Natha Singh initially and thereafter, other co-workers- Mr. Amulya and Mr. Kalu the work place of the workman-Respondent No.2 was searched and they had recovered 11 kg of copper pipe and nozzles from the tool box of the workman. The Workman-Respondent was separately chargesheeted, whereas other Three co-workers Natha Singh, Kalu and Amulya were separately chargesheeted. 55 . It further transpires that then Presiding Officer, Labour Court, while passing the impugned Award had reviewed the order dated 13.09.2002 passed by his Predecessor, by which the domestic enquiry was held fair and proper, but the Presiding Officer while passing the impugned Award has reviewed the said order by observing that his Predecessor has not appreciated the evidence brought during domestic enquiry by the Management and the Workman and he has not discussed the evidence. 56. 56. It has been held in the case of Kapra Mazdoor Ekta Union -Vs.- Birla Cotton Spinning & Weaving Mills Ltd. , reported in (2005) 13 SCC 777 , that Labour Court-Industrial Tribunal can not review its order and it is held at Para 19 as follows:- “ Para 19:- . Applying these principles it is apparent that where a court or quasi-judicial authority having jurisdiction to adjudicate on merit proceeds to do so, its judgment or order can be reviewed on merit only if the court or the quasi-judicial authority is vested with power of review by express provision or by necessary implication. The procedural review belongs to a different category. In such a review, the court or quasi- judicial authority having jurisdiction to adjudicate proceeds to do so, but in doing so commits (sic ascertains whether it has committed) a procedural illegality which goes to the root of the matter and invalidates the proceeding itself, and consequently the order passed therein. Cases where a decision is rendered by the court or quasi-judicial authority without notice to the opposite party or under a mistaken impression that the notice had been served upon the opposite party, or where a matter is taken up for hearing and decision on a date other than the date fixed for its hearing, are some illustrative cases in which the power of procedural review may be invoked. In such a case the party seeking review or recall of the order does not have to substantiate the ground that the order passed suffers from an error apparent on the face of the record or any other ground which may justify a review. He has to establish that the procedure followed by the court or the quasi-judicial authority suffered from such illegality that it vitiated the proceeding and invalidated the order made therein, inasmuch as the opposite party concerned was not heard for no fault of his, or that the matter was heard and decided on a date other than the one fixed for hearing of the matter which he could not attend for no fault of his. In such cases, therefore, the matter has to be reheard in accordance with law without going into the merit of the order passed. In such cases, therefore, the matter has to be reheard in accordance with law without going into the merit of the order passed. The order passed is liable to be recalled and reviewed not because it is found to be erroneous, but because it was passed in a proceeding which was itself vitiated by an error of procedure or mistake which went to the root of the matter and invalidated the entire proceeding. In Grindlays Bank Ltd. v. Central Govt. Industrial Tribunal [ 1980 Supp SCC 420 : 1981 SCC (L&S) 309] it was held that once it is established that the respondents were prevented from appearing at the hearing due to sufficient cause, it followed that the matter must be reheard and decided again.” 57. So far as judgment reported in Kapra Mazdoor Ekta Union -Vs.- Birla Cotton Spinning & Weaving Mills Ltd. , reported in (2005) 13 SCC 777 is concerned, it is evident that the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that power of Labour Court to review its earlier Award is not vested with the Labour Court. Thus, this is a case of reviewing the order dated 13.09.2002 passed by the Predecessor of the learned Labour Court, who has passed the impugned judgment (i.e. the Award) in question. Thus, the Award passed by the learned Labour Court is illegal and perverse and not sustainable in law. 58. In view of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court and also in the light of the discussions made above and on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, impugned Award dated 21.02.2006 (pronounced on 16.03.2006) passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Jamshedpur in Reference Case No. 20 of 1995 is, hereby, set aside and the finding recorded by the Disciplinary Authority against the appellant is hereby restored and the punishment of discharge of the Workman imposed by the Disciplinary Authority is restored. 59. Thus, this writ petition is, hereby, allowed. Let a copy of this judgment be communicated to the learned Court below and also to all concerned.