This application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed to quash the award dated 8.4.92 passed by the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Dibrugarh in Reference Case No. 13 of 1988 published on 9.6.92 holding that the Managment of Sibsagar Municipal Board was justified in dismissing the petitioner from service. 2. The brief facts of the case are as follows : That the petitioner was appointed as Assistant Tax Daroga in the year 1974 in Sibsagar Municipal Board and the petitioner was confirmed in the said post with effect from 15.8.80. The Chairman In-charge of the Board, respondent No.3 suspended the petitioner on the allegation of temporary misappropriation of Board's fund. On 16.9.90, the petitioner was dismissed from service without holding any inquiry with effect from 17.9.90 and the same was communicated to him vide letter dated 20.9.90. The Municipal Board framed a set of Rules known as 'Appointment to Service under the Board' in exercise of power conferred by section 301 of the Assam Municipal Act, 1956. Rule 19 of the aforesaid Rules lays down the procedure to be adopted in connection with the disciplinary proceedings and the imposing of penalty, the Rules visualises framing up of charges and statement of allegation, grant of opportunity to file written statement, filing of report by Enquiry Officer proposing penalty, further opportunity to show cause against proposed penalty. Rule 19 (2) (viii) (b) provides that the said procedure will not apply wherein the authority empowered to dismiss or remove a person or to reduce in rank is satisfied that for some reason to be recorded in writing it is not reasonably practicable to give to that person an opportunity of showing cause. Subsequently, Rule 19 (1) as published in the Gazette of April 8, 1959 is quoted below : “ 19. (1) No Municipal employee shall be dismissed or removed by an authority subordinate to that by which he was appointed. (2) No Municipal Board employee other than a fourth grade employee shall be punished with dismissal, removal or reduction in rank until he has been given a reasonable opportunity of showing cause against the action proposed to be taken in regard to him. (2) No Municipal Board employee other than a fourth grade employee shall be punished with dismissal, removal or reduction in rank until he has been given a reasonable opportunity of showing cause against the action proposed to be taken in regard to him. The following procedures should be scrupulously followed : (i) Drawing up of charges and a statement of allegations on which the charge of charges are based; (ii) Communicating above to the official concerned and asking him; (a) to file written statement of his defence by a prescribed date which gives him reasonable time, and (b) to state whether he desires to be heard in person. : (iii) Receipt of the explanation of the official; (iv) Recording of oral evidence of the official and the witnesses, if an oral enquiry is desired either by the official or by the enquiring officers; (v) Drawing up a report by the enquiring officer containing his findings and the penalty proposed to be imposed and its submission by him to the punishing authority (if he himself is not the punishing authority); (vi) Sending a copy of the report of the enquiring officer to the official and asking him to show cause by a particular date which affords him reasonable time why the particular penalty proposed should not be imposed on him; (vii) Receipt of the explanation of the official; (viii) Passing of final orders after duly considering the explanation referred to in (vii) above. Provided mat the above shall not apply. (a) where a person is dismissed or removed or reduced in rank on the ground of conduct which has led to his conviction on a criminal charge; or (b) where an authority empowered to dismiss or remove a person or to reduce him in rank is satisfied that for same reason to be recorded by that authority in writing, it is not reasonably practicable to give to that person an opportunity of showing cause; (3) If any question arises whether it is reasonably practicable to give to any person an opportunity of showing cause under sub-rule (2), the decision thereon of the authority empowered to dismiss or remove such person or to reduce him in rank as the case may be shall be final. The form prescribed for the record of proceedings against Government servant may be used in the case of Boards' employees.” 3. The form prescribed for the record of proceedings against Government servant may be used in the case of Boards' employees.” 3. That on 23.3.81 the petitioner was reinstated in service vide resolution dated 23.3.81 with effect from 1.4.81 and the same was communicated to the petitioner by letter dated 25.3.81. This was on a representation submitted by the petitioner. Accordingly, the petitioner resumed his duties. That on 20.3.85 the then Executive Officer of the Board Mr. MR Quadir gave written order to the petitioner to destroy the papers lying in the tax branch which are of no use and on which no action would be taken by the authority. The order dated 20.3.85 by the Executive Officer is quoted below : “I saw some unclassified papers heaped all around the rooms in your tax branch. Would you please sort out the papers which are of no use and action to be taken. Please destroy these papers immediately, so that the rooms look cleaner and there should not be any unhealthy conditions all around the branch.” 4. It is alleged that the petitioner prepared a list of unwanted papers and it is further stated that it was approved on 21.3.85 and accordingly, the petitioner burnt down the papers on 26.3.85 and on 27.3.85. It may be stated herein that before this burning was done on 25.3.85, a new Board took charge of office and the Executive Officer was no longer in the field. Thereafter, on 6.7.85 the petitioner was suspended for destroying the said papers on the basis of the resolution of the Board dated 5.7.85. It is alleged that no charge was framed against the petitioner yet the petitioner was directed to appear before an Enquiry Committee on 30.7.85. It is further alleged that no enquiry was held and the report was submitted on 7.12.85. The Board rejected the report in its meeting held on 27.12.85 and another enquiry was conducted and the enquiry report was submitted on 8.10.87. Thereafter, the petitioner was dismissed from service on and from 1.11.87. The petitioner raised a dispute before the Labour Officer, Sibsagar and it was referred to the Labour Court, Dibrugarh for adjudication. Before the Labour Court a case being Reference Case No. 13 of 1988 was registered. Notice were issued and on 11.1.89 a written statement was filed by the petitioner. Thereafter, the Board filed its written statement on 2.2.88. The petitioner raised a dispute before the Labour Officer, Sibsagar and it was referred to the Labour Court, Dibrugarh for adjudication. Before the Labour Court a case being Reference Case No. 13 of 1988 was registered. Notice were issued and on 11.1.89 a written statement was filed by the petitioner. Thereafter, the Board filed its written statement on 2.2.88. On 27.2.88 an additional written statement was filed by the petitioner. Documents were filed and the following witnesses were examined : (i) Md. Nurul Hussain, Hazarika. Ex-Chairman of Sibsagar Municipal Board; (ii) Sri Purna Nanda Mohan, V ice Chairman of Sibsagar Municipal Board; (iii) Sri Guru Nath Phukan, Tax Daroga of Sibsagar Municipal Board; (iv)Shri Lohit Dutta, Head Assistant-cum-Accountant, Sibsagar Municipal Board. (v) Drona Gohain, former Chairman of the Board; (vi) Shri Rana Khan, former Vice Chairman of the Municipal Board; (vii) Shri Dhiren Saikia, Tax Collector of Municipal Board; (viii) Ramesh Gogoi, Tax Collector Municipal Board; (ix) Shri Suren Dutta, LD Assistant Municipal Board. 5. These are the witnesses of the Board. On behalf of the petitioner, the following witness was examined : (i) Md. Nurul Haque, the petitioner. 6. A large number of documents were exhibited on behalf of the parties and on consideration of the materials on record, the learned Labour Court came to the following findings: “(a) The singular feature in the instant case is that no formal charge was framed against the workmen and no domestic enquiry was held against him. No notice to show cause in respect of the proposed action was served on the workman. In this view of the matter, the scope of the power of the Labour Court as enshrined in section 11A of the ID Act, 1947 has to be carefully gone into. (b) The allegation against the workman in the instant case is one of causing destruction by burning of valuable documents belonging to the Municipal Board. (c) There is no explanation whatsoever from the workman why an alleged order of20.3.85 from the then Executive Officer was carried out on 25.3.85, when the new Board took over charge on 25.3.85. (b) The allegation against the workman in the instant case is one of causing destruction by burning of valuable documents belonging to the Municipal Board. (c) There is no explanation whatsoever from the workman why an alleged order of20.3.85 from the then Executive Officer was carried out on 25.3.85, when the new Board took over charge on 25.3.85. In all fairness, the workman, had he acted with bona fide intention, could have certainly brought the matter to the notice of the Chairman and the Vice Chairman of the new Board which took over charge on 25.3.85, in order to clothe the said order of the Executive Officer of 20.3.85 with further prospective sanction and sanctity, (d) Other witnesses for the management have categorically deposed that the workman burnt down valuable documents belonging to the tax department of the Board. M W 3 Shri Guru Phukan deposed that Demand Register No. 1, Collection Hand BookNo.2, Collection Register, Receipt Books belonging to the tax department were burnt down. Witness No.7 for the management Shri Dhiren Saikia is very clear and categorical in deposing that 26.3.85 he saw the daily collection register kept above the Almirah of the room of the office where he used to sit, the Chitha Khatas kept in the wall-attached case, valuation and demand registers, hand book and miscellaneous receipt books etc being brought down by Devi Sarma and Devilal Sweeper. He asked the reason why these documents were brought down. Pat came to reply that the workman Nurul Haque ordered them to bring down these documents for clearing the mess.” (c) The conclusion is inevitable that the workman was motivated by ulterior intentions of suppressing evidence of collection of municipal rates and taxes etc and of never depositing such tax proceeds with the authorities in order to make unlawful gain. The money was the public money of the tax payers and the Board was deprived of the revenue for good because of wanton destruction of valuable records relating to collection of such municipal revenue. The management Board thus rightly lay its hands on sub-rule (3) of the Rule 19 of the rules relating to appointment to service under the Board in suspending the workman and in dismissing him without asking him to show cause. The management Board thus rightly lay its hands on sub-rule (3) of the Rule 19 of the rules relating to appointment to service under the Board in suspending the workman and in dismissing him without asking him to show cause. The Board had the unfettered discretion to invoke this sub-rule and the matter can be agitated no further, when gross misconduct of the workman was brought to light.” 7. Having arrived at these findings, the Labour Court found that the Board was justified in dismissing the petitioner from service. 8. An affidavit-in-opposition has been filed on behalf of respondent No.3 wherein it is stated as follows : “That there was no order approving the list of unwanted papers to be burnt down.” 9. An affidavit-in-reply has also been filed. 10.1 have heard Shri GN Sahewalla, learned Advocate for the petitioner and Shri DK Talukdar, learned Advocate for the Municipal Board and Shri DP Chaliha, learned Advocate for the State of Assam. Shri Sahewalla, learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner submits that as the dismissal was done without inquiry, the reasons for satisfaction regarding the dispensing with the enquiry should exist in the record, and in this connection, Shri Sahewalla places reliance on the following two decisions : (i) 1984 (Supp) SCC 554 (Workman of Hind us than Steel Ltd & others vs. Hindusthan Steel Ltd & others) wherein the Supreme Court in paragraph 4 has laid down the law as follows : “Where an order casts a stigma or affects livelihood before making the order, principles of natural justice namely a reasonable opportunity to present one's case and controvert the adverse evidence must have full play. Thus even though proviso (b) to Article 311 (2) permits dispensing with the inquiry, a safeguard is introduced that the concerned authority must specify reasons for its decision why it was not reasonably practicable to hold the inquiry. The power to dispense with inquiry is conferred for a purpose and to effectuate that purpose power can be exercised setting down the reasons. The reasons must be germane to the issue viz. of dispensing with the inquiry. Although in view of Article 311 (3) the decision of the authority is final, this only means that the Court cannot inquire into adequacy or sufficiency of reasons but the reasons are subject to limited judicial review. The reasons must be germane to the issue viz. of dispensing with the inquiry. Although in view of Article 311 (3) the decision of the authority is final, this only means that the Court cannot inquire into adequacy or sufficiency of reasons but the reasons are subject to limited judicial review. The Court in a petition for a writ of Certiorari can always examine reasons ex facie and if they are not germane to the issue but are merely a cloak, device or pretence to dispense with the inquiry and to impose the penalty of dismissal it can record a finding that the prerequisite for exercise of power was bad without jurisdiction.” (ii) The next case is (1991) 1 SCC 362 (Jaswant Singh vs. State of Punjab & others) wherein the Supreme Court the law has been laid down as follows : “Clause (b) of the second proviso to Article 311 (2) can be invoked only when the authority is satisfied from the material placed before him that it is not reasonably practicable to hold a departmental inquiry. The decision to dispense with the departmental enquiry cannot, therefore, be rested solely on the ipso dixit of the concerned authority. When the satisfaction of the concerned authority is questioned in a Court of law, it is incumbent on those who support the order to show that the satisfaction is based on certain objective facts and is not the outcome of the whim or caprice of the concerned officer.” 11. The order of dismissal in the instant case is Annexure II dated 26.10.87 by the Chairman, Municipal Board, Sibsagar and that is quoted below: “On consideration the report of Enquiry Committee dated 5.12.85 and 8.10,87 and on due consideration of all the facts and circumstances relevant, you have been found guilty of committing the offence of mischief of burning Board's valuable and permanent records etc. on 26.3.85 and 27.3.85, intentionally and without proper authority. In view of the serious nature of the misconduct committed by you and considering your past service relating to the Board's resolution No. 17 dated 23.3.81, the Board in its meeting held on 12.10.87 satisfied that it is not necessary to give you an opportunity of showing causes under sub-rule (viii) (b) and sub-rule 3 of the Rule 19 of the appointment of service and decided to dismiss you from service of the Board. Hence you are dismissed from service on and from 1.11.87 (forenoon).” 12. A bare persual of the materials on record will show that this power was exercised being satisfied on the basis of materials and it cannot be said that it is the outcome of the whim or capricious of the authority. After all the authority is to be satisfied on the basis of the facts and materials and that what was done in the instant case. Further, evidence with regard to this was also produced before the Labour Court and the Labour Court was satisfied with regard to this. 13. It is settled law that the legality and validity of the award can be challenged only on limited ground. The power of this Court to interfere in those matters in an application under Article 226 is absolutely circumscribed. The High Court does not sit in an appeal over the orders of the Labour Court. Its jurisdiction is supervisory and it can interfere with the order if the Labour Court exercises its jurisdiction improperly or noncompliance of the well established principle or for any such reasons. It is not the duty and function of th6 writ Court to pick holes here and there in order to test the legality and validity of the award. 14. In the instant case I find that the award of the Labour Court is a reasoned award, the Labour Court considered both oral and documentary evidence and came to the finding as indicated above and I do not find these findings to be perverse. 15. Accordingly, there is no merit in this writ application and the same is dismissed. However, I leave the parties to bear their own costs.