JUDGMENT Bhagabati Pros ad Banerjee, J. : This is an appeal against the judgement dated 11 December, 1989, passed by the learned Trial Judge in Civil Rule No. 4911(W) of 1978, dismissing the writ application filed by the appellant against the Award dated 16 March 1978, passed by the Judge, Ninth Industrial Tribunal, in industrial dispute case No. X-36 of 1975. 2. The respondent No.4, Shri Hari Bhagat, was an employee of the appellant Company in Press Shop. It was alleged that in or about March 1974, the workmen of the Press Shop of the Company, in violation of the terms of the tripartite settlement, resorted to slowing down of production of the Press Shop. Circulars and/or notices and caution letters were issued to the workmen between March 25, 1974, and 3rd April, 1974. The said notices did not produce the desired effect on the workmen and thereafter the appellant issued Charge Sheets to the workmen who were alleged to have indulged in such go-slow practice and other misconducts. It was further alleged that the workmen of the factory, including the Press Shop, resorted to tool down strike on 3rd April, 1974, attended with other acts of misconduct. 3. It is stated that the respondent No.4, Shri Hari Prasad Bhagat, was at all material times employed as semi-skilled workman in the Press Shop of the factory and that while so employed, he committed acts of misconduct under several heads of the Certified Standing orders. The acts alleged were that the said Shri Hari Prasad Bhagat deliberately slowed down the production of the Press Shop for quite some time and also instigated other workmen of his line to do so and of due to such acts, the Company's production had seriously affected. 4. The misconducts stated in the Charge Sheet, were wilful insubordination, disobedience of lawful and reasonable order of superiors wilful slowing down in the performance of work; riotous, disorderly, indecent behaviour threatening, intimidating, coercing other employees; gross neglect of work, etc. The charges were duly enquired into by the Enquiry Officer and on conclusion the Enquiry Officer, who held the enquiry, submitted a report to the Company on 15 October, 1974, containing his findings. In the said report, the respondent No.4 was found guilty of the charges contained in the Charge Sheet. The charges were duly enquired into by the Enquiry Officer and on conclusion the Enquiry Officer, who held the enquiry, submitted a report to the Company on 15 October, 1974, containing his findings. In the said report, the respondent No.4 was found guilty of the charges contained in the Charge Sheet. The said enquiry report was considered by the management and order of dismissal from service, was issued upon the Respondent No.4. 5. Thereafter, the Govt. of West Bengal, Labour Department, referred an industrial dispute between the management and the workmen on the following issues, viz. "Whether the dismissal of Shri Hari Bhagat is justified? To what relief, if any, is he entitled ?" 6. Parties appearing before the Tribunal, filed the respective statements and written statements and ultimately the Tribunal, by the Award dated 30th September, 1975, held that the order of dismissal was unjustified and the workman, Shri Hari Bhagat was entitled to be reinstated. 7. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the said Award, the appellant filed an application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, whereupon the Civil Rule No. 4911(W) of 1978 was issued. - Ultimately, the said writ application in the said Civil Rule carne up for hearing be for the learned Trial Judge and the learned Trial Judge, by the order dated 11th December, 1989, dismissed the writ application and discharged the rule. 8. Mr. Partha Sarathi Sengupta, the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant, contended that the Award of the Tribunal was perverse and that the Tribunal committed an error of law, apparent from the face of record, by placing the burden of proof on the management in respect of certain statement of facts made on behalf of the workmen before the Tribunal and that wrong adverse inference from non-production of those records of some other employees had resulted in substantial failure of justice. It was further submitted by Mr. Sengupta that the Tribunal could not set aside the order of dismissal. 9. In this connection, Mr. Sengupta submitted that the Tribunal initially held that domestic enquiry was neither fair nor proper. Evidence was produced. Mr. It was further submitted by Mr. Sengupta that the Tribunal could not set aside the order of dismissal. 9. In this connection, Mr. Sengupta submitted that the Tribunal initially held that domestic enquiry was neither fair nor proper. Evidence was produced. Mr. Sengupta submitted that the case of the appellant was that the acts of indiscipline in the plant and go-slow in the Press Shop were the charges against the respondent No.4 and that the said go-slow in the Press Shop took place under the leadership and in the incitement of the respondent No. 4. The Tribunal has recorded that "It has been further submitted that even if there was any such slow-down in the department, it has not been proved that Shri Hari Bhagat participated in it. Therefore, let me see now whether there was any slow-down of the production in the Press Shop at the relevant time. The slow-down according to the company, started in the last part of March, 1974. The Charge Sheet to the 'Workman was issued on 3rd April, 1974. Therefore, it is to be seen whether there was any slow-down in the Press Shop during this period. P.W.1 Shri Hari Bhagat says that he does not know whether there was normal production from 25.3.74 to 3.4.74. Therefore, he, cannot deny that slow-down was going on in the Press Shop. The union has examined another witness, who was the colleague of the workman, P.W.1. This witness P.W.2. also does not deny that in the Press Shop go-slow was resorted to. He simply says that the workman P.W.1 did not participate in slowing-down production. His evidence goes to show that though there was slow-down in the Press Shop, Shri Hari Bhagat was aloof. I shall discuss later whether Shri Bhagat participated in the go-slow, but this much is clear that there was go-slow in the Press Shop from 25.3.74." 10. The Tribunal also held that "There are other documents also to show that the workers in the Press Shop resorted to go-slow policy. Had there not been such incident, the company would not have indulged in issuing notices" after notices from 25.3.74, urging the workers to restore to normal production (Ext. H Series). On 28.3.74, this workman was given a caution letter for slowing-down the production (vide Ext.1). Ext. E is a Pamphlet issued by the Sankey Wheels Workers' Union (ATTUC). Had there not been such incident, the company would not have indulged in issuing notices" after notices from 25.3.74, urging the workers to restore to normal production (Ext. H Series). On 28.3.74, this workman was given a caution letter for slowing-down the production (vide Ext.1). Ext. E is a Pamphlet issued by the Sankey Wheels Workers' Union (ATTUC). This pamphlet also goes to show that the workers in the Press Shop resorted to go-slow policy and some workers were trying to disrupt the unity of the workmen in order to assist the management. I have, therefore, no hesitation to hold that there was slowdown of the production in the Press Shop during the relevant period. Then comes the question whether Shri Hari Bhagat participated in it. Hari Bhagat himself has made out a case that he is the leader of the union which put forward certain grievances of the Press Shop. I have already observed that there was slow-down in this section of the factory. Shri Hari Bhagat, being a leader of the union could not remain aloof. Therefore, the management cannot be disbelieved in this respect." 11. Finally, it was held on consideration of the evidence-on-record that "I have no hesitation to hold that Shri Hari Bhagat also participated in the slow-down in the Press Shop during the period in question." 12. Before the Tribunal, the union's stand was that Shri Bhagat was not the only workman who adopted go-slow tacties. There were workmen who had also participated in such go-slow tactics and against whom Charge Sheets were issued and ultimately they were let off and that by letting off others and not letting off Shri Bhagat, their leader, who was the leader of the movement, amounts to a case of discrimination, amounts to victimization as based on unreasonable discrimination. The Tribunal fuL1her held that "Even if it is assumed that Shri Bhagat is guilty of those misconducts, there has been victimization.". 13. The Tribunal also in the Award observed "The Charge Sheet against Shri Bhagat was issued on 3.4.74 (Ext. A). It was preceded by the caution letter dated 28.3.74 (Ext.I). In para 7 of the written statement, the union has alleged that similar caution letters were issued to 15 others named therein. The company has only denied the issue of such letter to Shri A.B.Konar. A). It was preceded by the caution letter dated 28.3.74 (Ext.I). In para 7 of the written statement, the union has alleged that similar caution letters were issued to 15 others named therein. The company has only denied the issue of such letter to Shri A.B.Konar. The company has merely stated that only three persons of the Press Shop were served with such caution letters and others did not belong to the Press Shop. In para 16 of the written statement, the union has alleged that 16 workmen including the workman were charged with similar offences and were found guilty in the domestic enquiry. In para 10 of the written statement the company has admitted the issue of Charge Sheet to them, except one A.B.Konar. The company, however, has submitted that Charge Sheets were issued on different dates and allegations (vide paras 10 and 12). Those Charge Sheets were issued after 3.4.74. Therefore, the different dates do not prove that the allegations were different. The relevant documents are in the custody of the company and those have not been produced to show that the allegations were different. Even in the written statement the company has not disclosed in what respects the charges against the other workers were different from those against Shri Bhagat." 14. Mr. Sengupta submitted that the filing of the Tribunal that even if Shri Bhagat was guilty of aggressive conduct, the order of dismissal being discriminatory in nature, should not be upheld, was perverse. In this connection, the Tribunal further observed that the workman is to establish victimization and that the workman was not in possession of those Charge Sheets issued to the other workmen and on the other hand, the Tribunal held that those are with the company and it was quite natural and probable that the. employees of the Press Shop in body was responsible for the acts and for that Shri Bhagat alone could not be singled out; and if all of them were involved the respondent No.4 should not be held responsible alone. 15. The Tribunal also found that the respondent No.4 Shri Bhagat was dismissed from service while other workers were suspended for two to eight days and this was done because the other workmen in whose favour such punishments were given were repentent and tendered apology. 16. Mr. 15. The Tribunal also found that the respondent No.4 Shri Bhagat was dismissed from service while other workers were suspended for two to eight days and this was done because the other workmen in whose favour such punishments were given were repentent and tendered apology. 16. Mr. Sengupta submitted that the learned Trial Judge was wrong in not interfering with or setting aside the Award in question as the same was on the face of it, perverse. On behalf of the respondent it was submitted that there had been no error on the face of the record of the Tribunal who had acted in a free and fair manner. There had been proper balancing of facts. The Tribunal had acted without any bias or any other consideration. Further it was submitted that the fact that the other workmen tendered apology had not been taken in the written 'statement filed by the company and the plea of victimization raised by the workmen was fully established. It was further submitted that the misconduct was never proved. It was further submitted that on the basis of the evidence, the movement of go-slow was proved but the respondent No. 4 was not only responsible for the same. It was decision of the workmen to go-slow and the respondent No.4 participated in such go-slow movement. Accordingly, he should not be punished even if he had participated in the go-slow in the facts and in the circumstances of this case. 17. It was further submitted that on behalf of the respondents, that the Labour Laws, being beneficial legislations, the onus of proof should lie on the management for non-production of any document in respect of cases which were alleged by the workmen. It was further submitted that when charges were levelled against sixteen workmen, the respondent No.4 workman should not be singled out for dismissal. 18. The Supreme Court, in P. T. Services vs. S.I. Court, reported in AIR 1963 SC 114 , held that the Award of the Industrial Tribunal was perverse and when it appears that no person, properly instructed in law and acting judicially, would have rejected a particular decision, the Court may proceed on the assumption that the misconception of law has been responsible for the wrong decision. In D. Prem Sagar vs. Standard Vacuum Oil Co., reported in AIR 1965 SC 111 , it was held that the order is shown to suffer from infirmity of an error of law apparent on the face of it, the Writ Court can interfere. But at the same time it was also held by the Supreme Court in the Calcutta Port Shramik Union vs. The Calcutta River Transport Association and others, reported in AIR 1988 SC 2163 , that the High Court in exercising power of judicial review to sustain as far as possible, the Award made by Industrial Tribunal instead of picking holes here and there in the Awards on trivial points and ultimately frustrating the entire adjudication process before the Tribunals by striking down Awards on hyper-technical grounds. 19. Supreme Court, in the case of Bharat Iron Works vs. Bhagu Bhai Balubhai Patel, reported in AIR 1976 SC 98 , held that "7. Ordinarily a person is victimised, if he is made a victim or a scapegoat and is subjected to persecution, prosecution or punishment for no real fault or guilt of his own, in the manner, as it were, of a sacrificial victim. It -is, therefore, manifest that if actual fault or guilt meriting the punishment is established, such action will be rid of the taint of victimization. 8. It is apparent that victimization may partake of various types, to cite one or two only, for example, pressurising an employee to leave the union or union activities; treating an employee unequally or in an obviously discriminatory manner for the sole reason of his connection with union or his particular union activity; inflicting a grossly monstrous punishment which no rational person would impose upon an employee and the like. 9. A word of caution is necessary. Victimization is a serious charge by an employee against an employer, and, therefore, it must be properly and adequately pleaded giving all particulars upon which the charge is based to enable the employer to fully meet them. The charge must not be vague or indefinite being as it is an analogy of facts as well as inferences and attitudes. * * * * * * 10. The onus of establishing a plea of victimization will be upon the person pleading it. The charge must not be vague or indefinite being as it is an analogy of facts as well as inferences and attitudes. * * * * * * 10. The onus of establishing a plea of victimization will be upon the person pleading it. Since a charge of victimization is a serious matter reflecting, to a degree, upon the subjective attitude of the employer evidenced by acts and conduct, these have to be established by safe sure evidence. Mere allegations, vague suggestions and insinuations are not enough. All particulars of the charge brought out, if believed, must be weighed by the Tribunal and a conclusion should be reached on a totality of the evidence produced. 11. Again victimization must be directly connected with the activities of the concerned employee inevitably leading to the penal action without the necessary proof of a valid charge against him." 20. It was further observed in this case that "a proved misconduct is antethesis of victimization as understood in industrial relations". It is true that when Labour Court comes to -the conclusion on consideration of the evidence that the management's action was not bona fide but amounted to victimization of the employee, it is not open to the High Court to disturb that finding except on the ground of error apparent on the face of the record or on the ground that there was no evidence at all to support it; and all finding as to mala fide or victimization, should be drawn only where evidence has been laid to justify it and such a finding should not be made either in a casual manner or light-heartedly. 21. Applying the principle laid down by the Supreme Court in this case that a proved misconduct is antethesis of victimization, in view of the finding made by the Tribunal that "there were acts of indiscipline in the plant and go-slow in the Press Shop and the charter of demand was placed subsequent to it. The go-slow in the Press Shop took place under the leadership and incitement of Shri Hari Prasad Bhagat, the workman concerned," and that "I have already observed that there was go-slow in this section of the factory. Shri Hari Bhagat, being a leader of the union, could not remain aloof. Therefore, the management cannot be disbelieved in this respect" and. . . . . . . . Shri Hari Bhagat, being a leader of the union, could not remain aloof. Therefore, the management cannot be disbelieved in this respect" and. . . . . . . . "therefore, I have no hesitation to hold that Shri Hari Bhagat also participated in the slowing down in the Press Shop". The question of victimization in case of / proved misconduct does not and cannot arise at all. When a misconduct is proved, that is proved. The same does not automatically become disproved or erased on the allegation of victimization. 22. According to Webster Comprehensive Dictionary, International Edition, the word 'victimization' means "To make a victim of, especially by defrauding or swindling; dupe; cheat." 23. According to the aforesaid dictionary meaning, read with the principle laid down by the Supreme Court in Bharat Iron Words (Case) (Supra), it must be held that the finding of the Tribunal that even if it is assumed that Shri Bhagat was guilty of that misconduct, there had been victimization, cannot be sustained. 24. In the instant case, the onus of establishing the plea of victimization was upon the employees put not on the employer. But the Tribunal has shifted the onus upon the employer on the ground that the workmen could not be in possession of those Charge Sheets issued to sixteen other persons and under such circumstances, the Tribunal has shifted the onus of disproving the case of victimization upon the employer which, on the face of it, indicates that there are errors apparent on the face of the record and that further there was no evidence to support the case of victimization. 25. Before the Tribunal, there was clear evidence that in respect of sixteen other employees, who were also proceeded with in respect of the said misconduct, were suspended for two to eight days without pay on the ground that the workers became repentent and tendered apology. In view of such evidence and in the absence of the evidence-on-record that the said Shri Bhagat was also repentent and tendered apology, the question of discrimination does not and cannot arise at all. The question of discrimination can only be pleaded where things were equal and similarly situated. In view of such evidence and in the absence of the evidence-on-record that the said Shri Bhagat was also repentent and tendered apology, the question of discrimination does not and cannot arise at all. The question of discrimination can only be pleaded where things were equal and similarly situated. In a departmental proceeding, if some of the workmen tender apology being repentent and others do not and the management takes a lenient view against the workmen who were repentent and tendered apology and took a serious view against the employees who were not repentent and tendered apology, it cannot be said by the imagination that the management had acted mala fide or discriminatorily or the same amounts to victimization. 26. Before the Tribunal, the Charge Sheets that were issued against sixteen other employees were not there and on the basis of the pleading that the charges were similar, on the basis of the evidence-on-record, the finding of victimization is clearly perverse. Neither there was proper pleading of victimization nor the onus of proof of victimization was discharged 'by the employees. Merely by shifting the onus upon the employer regarding the imposition of minor punishments on sixteen other employees, does not and cannot amount, and the case of victimization is not proved and the same is, on the face of it, perverse. 27. In our view, when the Tribunal has clearly come to the conclusion on the basis of and/or assessment of evidence that Shri Bhagat participated in the go-slow in the Press Shop between the period in question which was a definite charge of misconduct against Shri Bhagat, the Tribunal, in our view, was wholly wrong in setting aside the order of punishment on a perverse view of victimization and we do not find any basis nor any material-on-record before the Tribunal that the management was guilty of victimization in the facts and in the circumstances of the case. When the charge of participating in the go-slow in the Press Shop by Shri Bhagat was found by the Tribunal, the Tribunal committed a serious error of law in holding that the management was guilty of victimization in the absence of any material or evidence-on-record that there had been any case of deceitful means adopted by the management. There was case in the pursuit of some other object and/or there was a case of swindling and/or dupe by the management. 28. There was case in the pursuit of some other object and/or there was a case of swindling and/or dupe by the management. 28. The finding of the Tribunal that in this case the victimization was based on unreasonable discrimination, is clearly perverse, not based on any evidence and in the absence of discharging the onus of proving discrimination, the Tribunal had committed an error of law in holding that there had been unreasonable discrimination in the instant case. 29. As it is a clear case where the finding of the Tribunal that even though he was guilty of the charges, there was victimization as there was unreasonable discrimination. The case of discrimination is based on no evidence. The necessary ingredients of victimization had not been pleaded and proved. Merely by shifting the onus upon the management, the case of discrimination and victimization cannot be said to be proved. When a misconduct is proved and found and the Tribunal had accepted that Shri Bhagat was guilty of the misconduct, the said misconduct, the punishment awarded for such proved misconduct could not be set aside merely on the basis of allegation of victimization. 30. The learned Trial Judge was wrong in holding that there was no error of law apparent on the face of record. 31. In the facts and in the circumstances of this case and in view of the reasons given by us above, we are unable to hold that the Tribunal considered the matter by exercising its discretion in a judicial and judicious manner and the findings of the Tribunal recorded reasons for reinstatement were not cogent and/or at all convincing. 32. Accordingly, the Award of the Tribunal is set aside and the writ petition is allowed. The judgement of the learned Trial Judge is set aside. The appeal is hereby allowed without any order as to costs. 33. On the oral prayer of the learned advocate appearing for the respondents operation of this' order is stayed for 4 weeks from date. Ram Prakash Gupta, J.: I agree. Appeal Allowed.