JUDGMENT D.P. Singh, J.
1. Pleadings are exchanged and as such this petition is being finally disposed off under the rules of the court.
2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the Standing Counsel for respondent No. 1 and perused the record. None has appeared for the respondent No. 2 even though this case was taken up in the revised list on 19.9.2005 and the judgment was reserved.
3. Petitioner is a company duly incorporated and is engaged in transport business having its registered Head Office at Madras and one of its Branch is situated at Saharanpur. At the relevant time, Mr. G.S. Mani was the Branch Manager at Saharanpur while the respondent workman was the senior clerk-cum-cashier incharge of accounts and the Bank account was being operated under the joint signatures of both the aforesaid persons. Two cheques for total value of Rs. 1,40,385.23 paisa was deposited in one of the accounts of the petitioner company with the Bank on 27.10.1988 and on the same day the amount was withdrawn but it was not accounted for. A show cause notice dated 18.11.1988 was issued to both the persons whereafter disciplinary proceedings were initiated against them and Shri L.C. Agarwal, an Advocate of the Apex Court was appointed as Enquiry Officer. Simultaneously, a criminal case was also instituted. During the course of the departmental enquiry, statements of Jamal Uddin, Junior Officer, Kashmir Singh, Manager and the two employees were recorded and several documentary as well as oral evidence was filed before the Enquiry Officer. After due opportunity of hearing to the parties, the respondent workman was found guilty of fraudulently withdrawing the aforesaid amount from the Bank and Shri G.S. Mani was found guilty of negligence. After service of the enquiry report and hearing to the respondent workman, his services were terminated while Shri Mani was reverted with stoppage of increment. The respondent workman approached the Conciliation Officer and upon a failure report, the dispute was referred under Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act to the Labour Court which registered it as adjudication case No. 169 of 1990. The Labour Court framed a preliminary issued with regard to the fairness of the enquiry and found that the enquiry was neither vitiated nor violated the principles of natural justice. However, the Labour Court re-appreciated the evidence available before the Enquiry Officer and has rendered the impugned award dated 31.7.1998 holding that the charge was not proved beyond doubt and as such the workman was entitled for reinstatement with a minor punishment of stoppage of increment for two years but only with 50 per cent back wages. Thus, this petition.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has urged that the Labour Court cannot sit in appeal over the finding of the Enquiry Officer except when the findings are perverse or based on no evidence. The Enquiry Officer has found as a matter of fact that the workman deposited the cheques in the drawing account instead of in the collection account with motive. It also found as a matter of fact that the workman himself had gone to the Bank to withdraw the money and this was corroborated by another employee Sri Jamal Uddin and the Bank itself. It considered the attending circumstances of the workman handing over charge to Sri Mani in the night at 10.30 p.m. From a perusal of the enquiry report it cannot be said that its findings are based on no evidence or are perverse. There was sufficient material on record for the Enquiry Officer to have recorded the findings of guilt. By now it is well settled that if two views on the said evidence are possible, the Labour Court or any Tribunal would not have jurisdiction to take the other view. The Labour Court cannot also act as a court of appeal and re-appreciate evidence in a case where it finds that otherwise the enquiry was fair and proper and there was some material to support the findings recorded. The Apex Court in the case of Govt. of Tamil Nadu v. Rajapandian has reiterated the aforesaid ratio that where there is some relevant material which disciplinary authority has accepted and which reasonably supports the conclusion reached by it, the Tribunal cannot review the same and reach a different conclusion.
5. The Labour Court has laid great stress on the issue that withdrawal cheque borne two signatures of Sri Mani at its back and on this account it has held that Sri Mani was the person to have withdrawn the amount. Before the Enquiry Officer both the parties had admitted that cheques had to be signed jointly by the workman and Sri Mani. Sri Jamal Uddin, Junior Officer in the branch had made a categorical statement that Sri Mukherji had asked him to get the second signature of Sri Mani at the back of the cheque because his first signatures were not matching. The Labour Court has totally ignored this aspect. The Enquiry Officer had also found that the workman who was a senior clerk and incharge of .accounts was handling the financial transaction had acted in accordance to a plan and had fudged the date of his leave application and after withdrawing the amount had left the station. Thus, the workman who was holding a post of trust acted with motive in firstly depositing the cheque in the withdrawal account instead of collection account and then by employing deceit he withdrew the amount personally and left the City. Such action on the part of the workman did require a strict punishment and it cannot be said that the punishment of dismissal was in any way disproportionate to the misconduct. In my opinion, the approach of the Labour Court was against the settled principles of law that where the management has imposed a punishment, the Labour Court cannot supercede the punishment by lesser one until and unless the very conscience of the Court is shaken.
6. Learned Standing Counsel has urged that the company had also lodged an FIR under Section 420 and 406 IPC against both Sri Mani and the workman but the case has resulted in his acquittal, therefore, he should not be punished. Alongwith supplementary affidavit, the workman has filed a copy of the judgment of the criminal court dated 16.9.2004. However, it shows that the workman had been given the benefit of doubt and acquitted. As it was not a clean acquittal and also that the requirements and parameters of a criminal trial are vastly different with domestic enquiry, this cannot be a ground for upholding the award.
7. For the reasons given above, this petition succeeds and is allowed and the impugned award dated 31.7.1998 is hereby quashed. No order as to costs.