JUDGMENT Per Gajendragadkar, J.:-This appeal by special leave arises out of an industrial dispute between the appellant, the Pure Drinks (Private), Ltd., and Its employee Kirat Singh Maungatt (represented by the respondent union). The dispute was with regard to the order of discharge by which the services of the employee were terminated by the appellant. The tribunal which tried this dispute has held that the termination was unauthorized and illegal and it has accordingly directed the appellant to reinstate the employee within two weeks from the date when the award becomes enforceable. The tribunal has also passed consequential orders in respect of the said reinstatement. It is against this order that the appellant has come to this Court with special leave. The material facts leading up to the dispute are very few and they can be conveniently stated at the outset very briefly. Kirat Singh, the employee, has been working with the appellant as a route salesman since October 1952. The appellant is a private limited company engaged in the manufacture and supply of aerated water. On 28 March 1958, the employee signed the cash memo books and recorded his signature in the log-book as usual. That day the helper who would ordinarily have accompanied the employee was absent; in fact only seven helpers out of eleven had reported for duty on that day while ten routes had to be serviced. In the absence of the usual helper the employee was asked to take Suraj as a helper. He then refused to take him because The employee then made a request for an additional helper which request was rejected by the sales manager. The employee then persisted and said that he would apply for leave. He was told that leave could not be granted in the absence of any valid ground; even so the employee wrote an application for leave without pay in order to be able to attend to urgent personal work and handed over the same to the sales manager. When the sales manager emphasized that leave could not be granted under the circumstances under which the application for leave was made the employee became rude and spoke indignant and abusive language. He was then warned that his conduct had violated the discipline of the organization and would not be tolerated. When the sales manager emphasized that leave could not be granted under the circumstances under which the application for leave was made the employee became rude and spoke indignant and abusive language. He was then warned that his conduct had violated the discipline of the organization and would not be tolerated. Nevertheless the employee took off his uniform, tried to snatch the log-book from the sales manager s hand in order to strike off his attendance and ultimately left the premises using abusive language towards the sales manager. This incident gave rise to a chargesheet against the said employee. He was charged with wilful insubordination and disobedience of lawful and reasonable orders of his superior and it was alleged that he was guilty of an act subversive of discipline inasmuch as he had absented himself without leave. At the enquiry six witnesses were examined in support of the charges and they were cross-examined by the employee. The enquiry proceedings concluded on 30 April 1958. The enquiry officer found the employee guilty of the charges contained in the chargesheet. Thereupon a letter of discharge was issued to him on 8 July 1958. Even though the employee should have been dismissed on proved charges the appellant took a compassionate view of his case and decided to discharge him with one month s pay in lieu of notice and his pay for the suspension period as well as the amount due to him on account of accrued leave if any. The employee was not satisfied with this order and raised the present industrial dispute. The tribunal examined evidence on the merits of the dispute and came to the conclusion that the termination of the employee s services was not justified. It took the view that the employee was justified in asking for the assistance of a second helper since the helper Suraj offered to him was a mere boy. The tribunal examined evidence on the merits of the dispute and came to the conclusion that the termination of the employee s services was not justified. It took the view that the employee was justified in asking for the assistance of a second helper since the helper Suraj offered to him was a mere boy. It found that the probabilities supported the contention of the employee and that the charge as to the use of abusive language was not sustained, It also held that the evidence led was interested and unreliable and that " there is a basic error of fact in the conclusion arrived at by the management holding the workman guilty of the charges against him." The tribunal also took the view that the objection taken by the employee to the manner in which the enquiry was conducted was valid and that the enquiry in fact was not bona fide. It is on these grounds that the tribunal made its award directing the reinstatement of the employee. It is plain that the tribunal has exceeded its Jurisdiction in making the order of reinstatement under appeal, The jurisdiction of an Industrial tribunal in dealing with industrial disputes of this character is of a limited character. The limits of the said Jurisdiction have been expressly laid down by this Court on several occasions in the past, in dealing with an industrial dispute arising out of dismissal or termination of service the industrial court is entitled to enquire whether the impugned order has been passed mala fide and with improper motive or is the result of a desire to victimize the workman. If the answer to this question is in favour of the workman the tribunal can and should set aside the said order. If a proper charge has been framed and a proper enquiry has been held by the employer the industrial tribunal can interfere with the findings or conclusions reached by the enquiry officer at the domestic enquiry if, for instance, the conclusion is perverse and is not supported by any evidence. If a proper charge has been framed and a proper enquiry has been held by the employer the industrial tribunal can interfere with the findings or conclusions reached by the enquiry officer at the domestic enquiry if, for instance, the conclusion is perverse and is not supported by any evidence. Similarly, if the trial has been conducted unfairly In violation of the principles of natural justice interference by, the industrial tribunal would be justified but, It is not open to an Industrial tribunal to sit in appeal over the conclusions of fact recorded by the domestic enquiry, and that is precisely what the tribunal has purported to do in the present case. It has elaborately examined the evidence adduced in the case, considered the probabilities, examined the reliability of the two rival versions and has come to the conclusion that the version of the workman should be preferred to that of the employer; and that clearly would be open only to a court of appeal on facts. Therefore, there is an obvious infirmity in the. approach adopted by the tribunal in dealing with the present dispute and that infirmity has vitiated its final order. It is true that the tribunal has made an observation that the enquiry was not bona fide, and has also observed that there is a basic error of fact, but these expressions have been used in the award without due regard to their legal denotation. In coming to the conclusion that the enquiry is not bona fide the tribunal has given two reasons; one is that the statements recorded at the enquiry were taken down in shorthand notes and were signed by witnesses later on when they were transcribed in long-hand and typed. It is significant that no witness has come forward to say that the statements signed by him did not correctly represent what he had stated at the enquiry and so the fact that the statements were typed later does not make the enquiry mala fide or irregular or improper. The other reason given by the tribunal is that the witnesses who gave evidence at the enquiry were interested and some of them were promoted after the enquiry. Now, how this aspect of the matter can legitimately lead to the conclusion that the enquiry was not bona fide it is difficult to understand. The other reason given by the tribunal is that the witnesses who gave evidence at the enquiry were interested and some of them were promoted after the enquiry. Now, how this aspect of the matter can legitimately lead to the conclusion that the enquiry was not bona fide it is difficult to understand. It is by no means clear that the promotion of the said witnesses was not due to them otherwise. It may well have been an accident that they were promoted after the enquiry. They might have been promoted at the relevant time even if no enquiry had been held. The second reason given is the error of fact in the conclusion arrived at by the management. In plain language it means nothing more than this that the tribunal did not agree with the said conclusion of fact. The use of strong language may sometimes be justified in judicial pronouncements, but using strong words without realizing their due significance and without considering whether their use is justified is entirely out of place in judicial pronouncements. In our opinion, the reasons given by the tribunal in holding that the enquiry was not bona fide are entirely without any substance and its award must therefore be regarded as beyond its jurisdiction in dealing with the industrial dispute arising from the termination of the employee s services. The result is the appeal is allowed, the award is set aside and it is held that the order terminating the services of the employee was properly made by the appellant. In the circumstances of this case there would be no order as to costs. For Citation : (1961) 2 Lab LJ 99 (SC)