MEHHDTRA, C. J. : One Md. Abdul Razak was appointed Factory Clerk on 1st June 1956 by the Jorehaut Tea Co. Ltd. On the 1st October 1956 he was made permanent. The petitioner company the West Bengal Manufacturing Co. Private Ltd. owns the Tiok Tea Estate which was purchased from the Jorehaut Tea Co. Ltd. Md. Abdul Razak after the purchase was Kept in the employment of the petitioner company. I he Management by its order dated 6th January 1959 dismissed Md. Abdui Razak from the service. The matter was taken up by the Workmen of the Tiok Tea Estate represented by the Assam Cha Karmachari Sangha and an industrial dispute was raised. The industrial dispute by a notifica­tion dated 14th August 1959 was referred to the Labour Court under Sec. 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act. The Labour Court gave its award and held that the dismissal was not justified. In view, however, of the relationship between the Management and the workmen the Labour Court did not deem it proper to direct reinstatement of the workman concerned but directed the Management to pay Md. Abdul Razak all his arrears due from the date of the dismissal to the date of the award, together with all other benefits as might accrue to him during this period. It is against this award that the present petition has Been filed by the Management-under Article 226 of the Constitu­tion. (2) The contention raised by Mr. Goswami for the peti­tioner is that the Labour Court has exceeded its jurisdic­tion in setting aside the order of the Management terminat­ing the services of Sri Razak. The Labour Court came to the conclusion that there was no proper inquiry and thus after examining the evidence and the circumstances of the case held that the order of dismissal was not justified. In effect the finding of the Labour Court was that the charges have not been established against the workman. The Labour Court further held that from the circumstances it appeared that the Management had some ulterior motive in terminating the services of Sri Razak. (3) The circumstances under which the Labour court can interfere with the domestic inquiry have now Been-finally settled by their Lordships of the Supreme court, in the case of Indian Iron and Steel Co. The Labour Court further held that from the circumstances it appeared that the Management had some ulterior motive in terminating the services of Sri Razak. (3) The circumstances under which the Labour court can interfere with the domestic inquiry have now Been-finally settled by their Lordships of the Supreme court, in the case of Indian Iron and Steel Co. Ltd. v. Their workmen, AIR 1958 SC 130 at p. 138 the conditions are laid down under which the Labour Court or the Tribunal acquires jurisdiction to interfere with the order of the Management. The relevant passage is as follows: "Undoubtedly, 'the management of a concern has power to direct its own internal administration and discipline; out the power is not unlimited and when a dispute arises, Indus­trial Tribunals have been given the power to see whether the termination of service of a workman is justified and to give appropriate relief. In cases of dismissal on misconduct, the Tribunal does not, however, act as a Court of appeal and substitute its own judgment for that of the manage­ment. It will interfere (i) when there is a want of good faith, (ii) when there is victimisation or unfair labour practice, (iii) when the management has been guilty of a basic error or violation of a principle of natural justice, and (iv) when on the materials, the finding is completely baseless or perverse." The Labour Court in the present case has interfered with the order on the ground that the case comes under clause (iii) of the conditions laid down above by the supreme Court. The Labour Court's finding that there was some ulterior motive does not necessarily mean that there was victimisation. What was the motive which guided the Management to terminate the services of the workman is HOF the concern of the Court. Unless there is evidence to snow that the termination was the result of victimisation, the Labour Court gets no jurisdiction to interfere with the finding of the Management. As to the finding that the Management has been guilty of a basic error or violation of a principle of natural jus­tice, in our opinion the finding is not based on any evidence. By a letter dated the 13th December 1958 the workman was asked to explain certain charges. The charge was one of misconduct. As to the finding that the Management has been guilty of a basic error or violation of a principle of natural jus­tice, in our opinion the finding is not based on any evidence. By a letter dated the 13th December 1958 the workman was asked to explain certain charges. The charge was one of misconduct. It was alleged that he was grossly negligent and that his negligence has resulted in certain loss to the company. The charges may be set out- "In view of your habitual gross carelessness I, the Manager of Tiok Tea Estate call upon you to explain By 9 a.m. (local) on 16-12-58 at my office why you should not be dismissed or otherwise punished. Your explanation should be in writing and presented to me at my office on the aforementioned date and time when I will consider what you have written and give you a personal hearing." In the first paragraph of the letter the facts are set out from which the Management drew the inference that the workman was guilty of habitual gross carelessness. From the record it appears that on the 15th December 1958 the workman appeared before the Management and filed an explanation. On being asked he refused to make any further statement. On the 16th December 1958 he again submitted an explanation. Thus it appears that the charges were given to the workman. He was given an opportunity to ex-plain the charges. In pursuance of the notice he submitted his explanation on the 16th December 1958. In these cir­cumstances in the absence of any evidence to show that the workman was denied any opportunity to produce evidence or he was denied any opportunity to give his own oral statement on the 15th December 1958, it cannot be in­ferred that no hearing was given to him or that there was any violation of the principles of natural justice. The Labour Court has come to the conclusion that as on the 16th December 1958 no personal hearing was given Jo the workman, there was violation of the principles of natural justice. We do not find anything on the record to justify the finding of the Labour Court that personal hearing was denied to the workman. No exhaustive definition of the principles of natural justice can be laid down. Each case will depend upon its own circumstances. We do not find anything on the record to justify the finding of the Labour Court that personal hearing was denied to the workman. No exhaustive definition of the principles of natural justice can be laid down. Each case will depend upon its own circumstances. If the workman was supplied with the charges, if he was given an oppor­tunity to explain his charges and in pursuance of that notice he submits the explanation, and if there is nothing to show that he was refused an opportunity to examine witnesses or to make his own oral statement, it cannot be said that there was any failure to observe the principles of natural justice in the inquiry. (4) It is further urged by the petitioner that even if the finding was correct that there was failure to observe the principles of natural justice in the conduct of the in­quiry, the Labour Court had no jurisdiction to go into the merits of the charges and substitute its own finding to that of the Management. It will be in effect sitting as a Court of appeal against the order of the Management which the Labour Court had no jurisdiction to do. Cases where there has been no domestic inquiry at all, stand on a different tooting. If there has been no domestic inquiry the whole matter is at large and if parties lead evidence it is open to the Labour Court to give its own decision as regards the charges. But cases where there has been an inquiry though were may ; have been violation of the principles of natural justice in the inquiry, that will not give jurisdiction to the Labour Court to substitute its own finding to that of the Management in our opinion, therefore, the Labour Court was not justified in holding that there has been a breach of the principles of natural justice which vitiated the order of the Manage­ment and secondly even if the finding is justified, the Labour Court could not sit as a Court of appeal and substitute its own judgment with regard to the charges to that or the Management. In any view of the matter the award is without jurisdiction and must be quashed. But in the cir­cumstances the parties will bear their own costs of the petition.