This Civil Rule has been filed against the award dated 11.12.1987 passed by the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Guwahati. By the impugned award the Labour Court inter alia held as follows :- (1) The Management of Nilpur T. E. are not justified in dismissing Shri Ranjil Kr. Deb, pharmacist from service with effect from 1.2.82 (2) The workman is entitled to reinstatement. (3) The workman deserved some punishment and the proper punishment will be to deduct three fourth wages from the total wages due to him from the date of dismissal till re-instatement. As a result, the workman was ordered to be reinstated with one fourth of the total back wages. Being aggrieved by this award, the management has filed this application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 2. I have heard Mr. T. C. Khatri, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. P. C. Deka, learned counsel for the Respondent No. 3 and Smt. A. Hazarika, learned counsel for the Respondent No. 2. 3. The brief facts are as follows : - By Annexure-D to the writ application the letter was written by the Secretary, ACKS Garden Unit to the Manager of Nilpur Tea Estate whereby the Manager was requested to take action against Shri Ranjit Kr. Deb, respondent No. 3 in this writ application. On receipt of this letter a show cause notice was issued on 9.10.81 on Respondent No. 3 asking him to explain his conduct regarding the three charges levelled against him. A show cause was submitted on 15.10.81 by the respondent No. 3 wherein he generally denied the allegations brought against him. By letter the petitioner)management asked the Respondent No. 3 to submit further explanation. Thereafter on 1.2.82 the Respondent No. 3 was dismissed from service. On 17.8.84 the Government of Assam issued a notification by which the dispute with regard to the dismissal of respondent No. 3 was referred to the Labour court for adjudication and award. As stated earlier the award was made on 11.2.87. On 12.4.88 Rule was issued by this court, but the prayer for stay was rejected. On 19.4.88 the management passed an order reinstating the respondent No. 3 subject to the finalization of the Civil Rule, but again his service was terminated. On 9.8.88 this court passed an order directing the petitioner to pay Rs. On 12.4.88 Rule was issued by this court, but the prayer for stay was rejected. On 19.4.88 the management passed an order reinstating the respondent No. 3 subject to the finalization of the Civil Rule, but again his service was terminated. On 9.8.88 this court passed an order directing the petitioner to pay Rs. 500/- P. M. to the respondent No. 3 from August, 1988 till disposal of the case and not to evict the respondent No. 3 from the quarter. The power that can be exercised under Article 226 of the Constitution in a matter like the instant one has been settled by a catena of decisions. I only refer to the following decisions : - (I) 1985 (2) GLR NOC 3 (Prabal Baruah Vs. Dibyadhar Gogol & Ors.) wherein the Division Bench of this court inter alia pointed out as follows : - "It is an accepted principle that in a proceeding under Article 226 the High Court cannot sit as a court of appeal over the findings of fact recorded by a competent inferior Tribunal to depreciate the evidence for itself. Nor can it go to correct an error of fact, which does not go to jurisdiction, however apparent it might be. Since the jurisdiction in certiorari is not appellate, it follows mat a finding of fact reached by an inferior court or Tribunal, as a result of its appreciation of evidence, or an inference of fact from the materials before it, can not be reopened in a proceeding for certiorari, on the ground that evidence relied upon is insufficient or that the appreciation thereof is wrong, or that some evidence was not duly considered or specifically referred to in the judgment. Where upon the face of the proceedings themselves it appears that decision of inferior tribunal is wrong in law, certiorari will be granted." In A. I. R. 1984 SC 1467 (Sadhu Ram vs. Delhi Transport Corporation) wherein in paragraph 3 of the judgment it was pointed out as follows: - "The jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution is truly wide but, for that very reason it has to be exercised with great circumspection. It is not for the High Court to constitute itself into an appellate Court over Tribunals constituted under special legislations to resolve disputes of a kind qualitatively different from ordinary civil disputes and to readjudicate upon questions of fact decided by those Tribunals. That the questions decided pertain to jurisdictional facts does not entitle the High Court to interfere with the findings on jurisdictional facts which the Tribunal is well competent to decide. Where the circumstances indicate that the Tribunal has snatched its jurisdiction, the High Court may be justified in interfering. But where the tribunal gets jurisdiction only if a reference is made and it is therefore impossible ever to say that the Tribunal has clutched at jurisdiction, we do not think that it was proper for the High Court to substitute its judgment for that of the Labour Court and hold that the workman had raised no demand with the management." 4. This being the position of law now applying that touch-tone, let me have look at the validity of the award passed by the Labour Court as indicated above. Mr. Khatri, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted the following points :- (i) The burden to prove the first charge was on the Respondent No. 3 and the Labour Court did not consider Annexure-B, Annexures-4,5 and the various other documents relied upon by the management. The Labour Court failed to consider the conduct of Respondent No. 3 in the presence of the staff of the management on 21.9.81. (ii) There was no compliance with Section 11 (A) of the Industrial Dispute Act and the same was misconstrued by the Labour Court. (iii) The award is contrary to the mandate of law and judicial precedents. (iv) If the impugned award is allowed to stand, it will create disharmony and industrial disorder and erode the faith of workman in the managerial act of the management. 5. Now let me have look at the findings of the Labour Court. The findings inter alia are as follows : - (i) The management has not examined any of the other three members of the staff namely N. Bhattacharyya, S. N. Ghosh Roy and Rebati Ranjan Singh to prove that only the workman sent the telegram without their knowledge. There is no proof that the management drew up disciplinary proceedings against the other three employees. There is no proof that the management drew up disciplinary proceedings against the other three employees. There is no evidence that the workman took leading part in this move against the manager. The workman was singled out and punished. It was a joint move against the manager and therefore it was unfair on the part of the manager to take such severe action only against the workman. (ii) Regarding the second charge of using insulting language and poster against the manager the Labour Court came to the finding as follows : - "The manager has not examined the doctor and the garden unit Secretary of the A. C. M. S. in this court. The management has failed to prove the charge in this court." (iii) The charge No. 3 is that the workman was dismissed few months back and was pardoned on intervention by the Secretary, A. C. K. S., Naduar circle and on me assurance of good behaviour, but the workman violated that assurance in word and spirit both, this charge which also was not established. 6. The findings on all these charges are that the workman was dismissed vide Ext. 10. There is nothing in Ext. 10 to show that the workman was dismissed not only for the charges issued to him, but also due to his past conduct. It appears from Ext.10 that the past conduct is not the effective reason of dismissal. The Labour Court came to the finding that the dismissal is not justified and the dismissal cannot be upheld as because his past conduct was not satisfactory. The Labour Court also came to the finding that the extreme punishment of dismissal is not justified when the management did not take any action against other three employees. 7. So considering all the materials on record, the Labour Court set aside the order of dismissal holding it to be unjustified and gave some punishment as provided in law. 8. I have considered the submissions made by Sri T. C. Khatri, learned counsel for the petitioner and also have considered the materials on record and I base on the law settled, I do not find that this award is perverse and/or call for any interference in exercise of the writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 8. I have considered the submissions made by Sri T. C. Khatri, learned counsel for the petitioner and also have considered the materials on record and I base on the law settled, I do not find that this award is perverse and/or call for any interference in exercise of the writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The findings recorded by the Labour Court are not erroneous findings of fact and has been arrived at on consideration of the materials on record and there is not any judicial error nor can it be said that the jurisdiction was snatched away by the Labour Court. 9. In that view of the matter, there is no merit in this writ application and the same is accordingly dismissed. The workman will be paid his arrear salary and he will be immediately reinstated in his service with all the back wages and other benefits. 1 leave the parties to bear their own costs.