JUDGMENT : S.P. Kurdukar, J. The Petitioner, who was a workman working in the partnership firm of the 1st respondent as a highly skilled workman came to be dismissed by the respondent on January 2, 1975. It must be stated that the 1st respondent-employer after holding a domestic enquiry found the petitioner guilty of certain charges relating to misconduct and on the basis of this basis of this misconduct the employer dismissed the petitioner from its services from January 2, 1975. The petitioner raised a dispute, which came to referred to the Labour Court at Bombay, being Reference (ID) No. 842 of 1975. The Labour Court vide its Award dated April 29, 1989 at Exhibit 'A' rejected the reference and confirmed the order of dismissal. It is this Award of the Labour Court, Bombay, Which is the subject-matter of challenge in this writ petition. 2. Though the employer - 1st respondent is served, it has chosen to remain absent. Dr. R. S. Kulkarni, appearing in Support of this petition, took us though the judgment and order of the Labour Court and urged that the Labour Court has totally overlooked the statutory provisions contained in Section 11-A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (here in after referred to as 'the said Act') Counsel urged that the Labour Court applied old law laid down by the Supreme Court in Indian Iron and Steel Co., Ltd. and Another Vs. Their Workmen, and there by committed serious illegality while not following amended provisions contained in section 11-A of the said Act. The Labour Court has observed as under : "As regards the rest of the charges i.e. S. Nos. 2, 3, 4, and 6, I do not find that these charges are fully supported by the evidence before the enquiry officer. A finding is said to be perverse only when there is no legal evidence to support it. ..... Even cursory perusal of the report of the enquiry officer would show that he has discussed and analysed all the evidence placed before him and has given cogent and convincing reasons for his finding on the facts alleged by the Company and he has taken into consideration the entire evidence in reaching his conclusions. Charges Nos. 2, 3, 4, and 6 in any view are broadly inter-dependent and are fully supported by the evidence on record. Charges Nos. 2, 3, 4, and 6 in any view are broadly inter-dependent and are fully supported by the evidence on record. I therefore conclude that save his finding on Charge NO. 1, all the charges Nos. 2, 3, 4 and 6 are duly proved." 3. In substance, the learned Labour Judge felt that unless the findings recorded by the enquiry officer are shown to be perverse and contrary to the evidence on record, he has no jurisdiction to re-appreciate the evidence led before the Enquiry Officer, Even as regards quantum of punishment, the learned Labour Judge followed the old law. Dr. Kulkarni drew our attention to a judgment of the Supreme Court in The Workmen of Firestone Tyre and Rubber Co. of India (Pvt.) Ltd. Vs. The Management and Others, and urged that the view taken by the learned labour Judge is wholly illegal and in the light of the observations of the Supreme Court in this judgment, the impugned award deserves to be quashed and set aside. We find considerable substance in this submission in as much as the learned Labour Judge has totally ignored the amended provisions of section 11-A of the Said Act. We may only reproduce the observations of the Supreme Court in the case of Workmen of M/s. Firestone Tyers and Rubber Co. of India (Supra) which are as follows (p. 295) : We will first consider cases where an employer has held a proper and valid domestic enquiry before passing the order of punishment. Previously, the Tribunal had no power to interfere with its finding of misconduct recorded in the domestic enquiry unless one a or other infirmities pointed out by this court in Indian Iron and Steel Co. Ltd. (supra) existed. The Conduct of disciplinary proceeding and the punishment to be imposed were all considered to be a managerial function with which the Tribunal had no power to interfere unless the finding was perverse or the punishment was so harsh as to lead to an interfere of victimisation or unfair labour practice. Ltd. (supra) existed. The Conduct of disciplinary proceeding and the punishment to be imposed were all considered to be a managerial function with which the Tribunal had no power to interfere unless the finding was perverse or the punishment was so harsh as to lead to an interfere of victimisation or unfair labour practice. This position, in our view, has now been changed by Section 11-A. The words "in the course of the adjudication proceeding, the Tribunal is satisfied that the order of discharge or dismissal was not justified" clearly indicate that the Tribunal is now clothed with the power to re-appraise the evidence in the domestic enquiry and satisfied it self whether the said evidence relied on by an employer established the misconduct alleged against a workman. What was originally plausible conclusion that could be drawn by an employer from the evidence, has now given place to a satisfaction being arrived at by the Tribunal that the finding of misconduct is correct. The limitations imposed on the powers of the powers of the Tribunal by the decision in Indian Iron and steel Co. Ltd. (Supra) can no longer be invoked by an employer. The Tribunal is now at liberty to consider not only whether the finding of misconduct recorded by an employer is correct but also to differ from the said finding if a proper case is made out. What was once largely in the realm of the satisfaction of the employer, has ceased to be so, and now it is the satisfaction of the Tribunal that finally decides the matter." In view of this law said laid down by the Supreme Court, in our opinion, the impugned award can not be sustained. 4. The next question would be as to whether this court should look into the evidence adduced by the parties before the Enquiry Officer. The present paper book does not contain notes of evidence and other relevant material on record. In addition to this fact, the 1st respondent though served is not before us. In view of these peculiar circumstances, in our opinion it would be proper to remand the matter back to the learned Labour Judge for disposal in accordance with law and in the light of the observations made by the Supreme Court quoted herein above. 5. In the result, the writ, petition succeeds. In view of these peculiar circumstances, in our opinion it would be proper to remand the matter back to the learned Labour Judge for disposal in accordance with law and in the light of the observations made by the Supreme Court quoted herein above. 5. In the result, the writ, petition succeeds. The impugned award is quashed and set aside and the matter is remitted back to the learned Labour Judge for disposal in accordance with law. The Labour Judge is directed to dispose of the matter as expeditiously as possible and preferably before September 30, 1990. Rule is partly made absolute. In the circumstances of the case there will be no order as to costs.