JUDGMENT : Mudholkar, J. These are two connected appeals, one is against the judgment of the Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court dismissing an appeal under Letters Patent from the order of a Single Judge dismissing a writ petition. In that writ petition the appellant had challenged the correctness of the decision of the Labour Appellate Tribunal dismissing an appeal preferred by the appellant against an award made by the Industrial Tribunal, Kanpur. The writ petition was dismissed by the Single Judge on the ground that the Labour Appellate Tribunal, Lucknow Bench, had ceased to exist and that the record of the case was at Bombay and not within the State of Uttar Pradesh. This view was upheld by the Division Bench. The other appeal is directed against the decision of the Labour Appellate Tribunal and has been brought by special leave granted by this Court on October 12, 1959. It may be mentioned that the latter appeal was preferred after a long delay of about three years but that delay has already been condoned by this Court. 2. The dispute which was referred to the Industrial Tribunal by the Government of Uttar Pradesh was as follows: "Whether the employers have wrongfully and/or unjustifiably :erminated the services of Sri Mahabir Prasad, son of Sri Satya Narain, Bungalow Electrician with effect from 2nd June, 1955? If so, to what relief is the workman entitled?" Mahabir Prasad was employed as an electrician in the power house of the J.K. Cotton and Spinning Mills, the respondent before us. On November 24, 1953 at about 4 p.m. Durga Mali, an employee of the appellant, saw Chhote Lal electric mazdoor of the power house coming in a rickshaw. The rickshaw halted near the tank in the premises of the power house. Adjacent to it is a building called "Kamla Niwas". Chhote Lal jumped over the boundary wall of Kamla Niwas and returned with two bags while Mahabir Prasad stood near the rickshaw. This aroused the suspicion of Durga Mali and he told Mannu Lal Sergeant what he had seen. On seeing the Sergeant following them Mahabir Prasad ran towards the bungalow of Mr Srivastava, while Chhote Lal ran towards Gate No. 1. The rickshaw was thereupon seized by the Sergeant and it was taken to the police station where a report was lodged. On seeing the Sergeant following them Mahabir Prasad ran towards the bungalow of Mr Srivastava, while Chhote Lal ran towards Gate No. 1. The rickshaw was thereupon seized by the Sergeant and it was taken to the police station where a report was lodged. The incident was also seen by Ram Niwas who was at that time cleaning utensils in his quarters. Eventually both Mahabir Prasad and Chhote Lal were tried for an offence of theft. On March 23, 1953 each of them was convicted by the Magistrate 1st class, Kanpur under Section 380 of the Indian Penal Code, and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for six months and to pay a fine of Rs 50. Both of them preferred appeals against their convictions and were acquitted by the Additional District and Sessions Judge on September 8, 1955. 3. On December 5, 1953 Mahabir Prasad was served with a charge-sheet by registered post as also Chhote Lal and both were required to present themselves for enquiry on December 9, 1953. Neither of them however appeared personally on that date nor did they submit any explanation. The enquiry officer, in order to give them a further chance, adjourned the enquiry to December 25, 1953 and as Mahabir Prasad was on leave the date was intimated to him by post. Mahabir Prasad replied by a letter dated December 31, asking for further time to appear and the hearing was adjourned to January 29, 1954. A letter was also sent to him intimating the adjourned date on which he was required to appear. He, however, informed the enquiry officer that he did not want to take part in the enquiry and would submit his statement and defence only before the Magistrate who was trying the case. He also requested that the enquiry be adjourned till the decision of the criminal case. This request was granted by the enquiry officer. It was only after the decision of the criminal case that the enquiry was taken up. That was on April 8, 1955. Intimation of this date was given to Mahabir Prasad by a letter dated April 2, 1955. He did not appear on that date either. In his reply which was received on April 7, 1955 he prayed for adjournment of the enquiry till the decision of the appeal which he intended to prefer against his conviction and sentence. Intimation of this date was given to Mahabir Prasad by a letter dated April 2, 1955. He did not appear on that date either. In his reply which was received on April 7, 1955 he prayed for adjournment of the enquiry till the decision of the appeal which he intended to prefer against his conviction and sentence. He was, however, informed that no further adjournment was possible. It was in these circumstances that the enquiry officer proceeded with the enquiry in the absence of the respondent. As pointed out by this Court in Delhi Cloth and General Mills Ltd. v. Workmen, (1960) ILLJ 520 the principles of natural justice do not require that the employer must wait for the decision of a criminal case or an appeal before proceeding with a domestic enquiry. Three persons were examined by the enquiry officer; (1) Sri Mannu Lal Asstt. Security Officer, (2) Durga Mali, and (3) Ram Niwas. In his order the enquiry officer has observed as follows: "After going into all the statements carefully and after examining the conduct of the workmen before me I am satisfied that he is guilty of the charge laid against him. As he is guilty of gross misconduct of stealing Company's property he cannot be allowed to stay any further in the mills." It will appear that an industrial dispute was then pending between the management and the workers and therefore the permission of the Regional Conciliation Officer to dismiss Mahabir Prasad was sought by the appellant. This permission was granted and Mahabir Prasad was dismissed from service. It will appear that after the acquittal of Mahabir Prasad and the refusal of the appellant to reinstate him, the workmen of the appellant represented by Bharatiya Mazdoor Sangh approached the State Government for referring the dispute to the Industrial Tribunal. That is how the reference with which we are concerned in this case came to be made. The Industrial Tribunal curiously enough dealt with the matter as if it was hearing an appeal from the decision of the domestic tribunal and proceeded to record evidence of witnesses on behalf of the Union and on behalf of the appellant. In the course of the award the Tribunal observed: "The management has not proved anything more than this theft case which can be a cause for the dismissal of the worker .... In the course of the award the Tribunal observed: "The management has not proved anything more than this theft case which can be a cause for the dismissal of the worker .... but I cannot close my eyes to the bare fact which came out during the evidence before me. The management has utterly failed in convincing me that Sri Mahabir Prasad has really committed the theft." After saying this the Tribunal discussed the evidence adduced before it as well as the probabilities of the case and disbelieved the evidence led on behalf of the appellant and observed that the management was legally bound to consider the judgment of the appeal court and give due weight to it in deciding the allegations against Mahabir Prasad. According to the Tribunal the conclusion arrived at in the departmental enquiry was based on the judgment of the trying Magistrate which was set aside in appeal and therefore no value can be attached to the finding arrived at in the enquiry. In the end the Tribunal ordered the reinstatement of Mahabir Prasad with continuity of service and also awarded Rs 300 as compensation to him. In the appeal taken before the Labour Appellate Tribunal by the appellant while that Tribunal accepted the plea of the appellant that the domestic enquiry was made bonafide and after following the proper procedure and that in such a case the Industrial Tribunal cannot interfere with the action taken "except under the limits laid down in the case of Buckingham and Carnatic Mills", it came to the conclusion that the departmental enquiry seems to have been influenced by the conviction of Mahabir Prasad by the trying Magistrate. The Appellate Tribunal also observed: "Moreover, the Industrial Tribunal has given very sound and cogent reasons on an examination of the circumstances of the case as to how the story of theft cannot be believed. In the absence of any substantial question of law, therefore, the appeal by the Management would not lie." 4. In our opinion the Labour Appellate Tribunal having come to the conclusion that there was no defect in the domestic enquiry the only thing it could do was to set aside the order of the Industrial Tribunal. In the absence of any substantial question of law, therefore, the appeal by the Management would not lie." 4. In our opinion the Labour Appellate Tribunal having come to the conclusion that there was no defect in the domestic enquiry the only thing it could do was to set aside the order of the Industrial Tribunal. This Court has pointed out time and again that an Industrial Tribunal to which a dispute arising from dismissal has been referred for adjudication is not an appeal court having the power to examine the correctness of the conclusions of fact arrived at by a domestic tribunal. Where the Industrial Tribunal finds that there was nothing improper or unfair in an enquiry conducted by the domestic tribunal and where the action taken against workmen was not actuated by any ulterior motive and where the principles of natural justice have not been infringed it is beyond the powers of an Industrial Tribunal to set at naught the action taken by the management which lay within its competence under the standing orders. Whether the material before the domestic tribunal was adequate or not or whether the particular witnesses upon whom reliance was placed by the Tribunal should have been believed or not was entirely a matter for the consideration of the domestic tribunal. The Industrial Tribunal, while adjudicating upon an industrial dispute referred to it, does not possess the power of reviewing the evidence adduced before the domestic tribunal or of taking fresh evidence before it except in the limited class of cases to which we have referred in some of our decisions, as for instance, our decision in Mckenzie and Co. Ltd. v. Workmen, (1959) Supp 1 SCR 222. There at p. 229 this Court quoted with approval the principles which govern the power of an Industrial Tribunal to interfere with the decision of the employer as laid down by this Court in Indian Iron and Steel Co. Ltd. v. Workmen, AIR 1958 SC 130 where S.K. Das, J. said: "Undoubtedly, the management of a concern has power to direct its own internal administration and discipline; but 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 or 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 want of good faith, (ii) when there is victimisation or unfair labour practice, (iii) when the management has been guilty of basic error or violation of a principle of natural justice, and (iv) when on the materials, the finding is completely baseless or perverse." The present case is not such as to warrant taking' of fresh evidence by the Industrial Tribunal. It is true that both the Industrial Tribunal and the Labour Appellate Tribunal have said that the domestic enquiry seems to have been influenced by the conviction of Mahabir Prasad by the Magistrate but we find nothing in the report of the domestic tribunal to warrant such a conclusion. 5. In the result therefore we allow the appeal and quash the order of the Industrial Tribunal along with the order of the Labour Appellate Tribunal. 6. In view of our decision in the appeal against the decision of the Labour Appellate Tribunal the appeal preferred against the decision of the High Court under the Letters Patent has become infructuous and is therefore dismissed. There will be no order as to costs in either of these appeals.