JUDGMENT S. N. Mishra, J. 1. In this writ application under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner namely Motiur Rahman has challenged the award dated 30.12.86, passed by the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Patna upholding the order of dismissal passed against the petitioner by the respondent Chairman, Bihar State Electricity Board, Patna including the order dated 20.12.1973 passed by the same Labour Court, upholding the findings recorded by the Enquiring Officer in the domestic enquiry, a copy of the award as well as the order dated 20.12.1973 are made Annexures-1 and 9 respectively to this writ application. 2. Briefly stated the case of the petitioner is that he entered into the service of the Patna Electric Supply Company Ltd. in the year 1967 (hereinafter referred to as 'the company') as a Mazdoor. Since then he was performing his duty to the satisfaction of the company. The petitioner claiming to be the active member of the Patna Electric Supply Workers Union (hereinafter referred to as the Union) and took part in January, 1969 strike in order to pressurise the company for acceptance of their demands as also for reinstatement of one Shri Pratus Ranjan Roy, a member of the Union, who was dismissed from service on 24.1.1969. It is alleged that an Industrial dispute was raised against the order of dismissal of the said Pratus Ranjan Roy and the Government of Bihar in the Department of Labour, Employment and Training, referred the dispute to the Labour Court. The Resident Engineer of the Company issued a chargesheet on 5.2.1971 mentioning the acts of misconduct on the part of the petitioner which are as follows : (1) That you have been absent from your duty on and from 28.1.1971 consequent upon the sick leave granted to you from 13.1.1971 to 27.1.1971 without any information and/or extension of leave. (2) That you were a member of the assembly of the striking workers that attacked the loyal workers in the morning of 22.1.1971 when the latter were engaged on urgent repairs of the 6.6. KV Digha feeder in Punaichak near Digha Railway Line. It has been reported that it was on your blowing a whistle that the crowd of the striking workers attacked the loyal workers and assaulted Sri Ramji Roy, Mazdoor (loyal worker) badly causing multiple fracture in his right forearm. KV Digha feeder in Punaichak near Digha Railway Line. It has been reported that it was on your blowing a whistle that the crowd of the striking workers attacked the loyal workers and assaulted Sri Ramji Roy, Mazdoor (loyal worker) badly causing multiple fracture in his right forearm. You are, therefore, also responsible for the assault committed on Sri Ramji Rai. (3) That it has been reported that on 31.1.1971, at about 9 PM. while you were attempting to spike the 6.6 KV cable at Mithapur, you were apprehended by local people of the Mohalla namely S/S Ram Prasad Sharma, Ajoy Kumar Singh and Ram Babu Yadav and thereafter you were handed over by them to the Kotwali Police. (4) That it would appear from the charges (2) and 3 above, that you were in fact not sick and had taken medical leave on false grounds, which is a misconduct under the certified standing orders of the company. A copy of the said charge is made Annexure-2 to this writ application. 3. The petitioner filed show cause to the charges framed against him denying all the allegations, a copy of the show cause filed before the Resident Engineer of the company is Annexure-3 to this writ application. Having satisfied with the show cause, Sri S.C. Chatterjee, Mains Superintendent was appointed to conduct the domestic enquiry. Pursuant to the notice having been served upon the parties, the concerned workmen as well as the Management appeared before the Enquiring Officer. A petition was filed by the petitioner before the Enquiring Officer to allow him to be represented by a workman namely Shri B.K. Gupta. The Enquiring Officer has rejected the prayer of the petitioner to be represented by the said Sri Gupta on the ground that he is one of the active member of the Union. However, the Enquiring Officer has allowed the petitioner to be represented by any worker other than Shri Gupta, as may be selected by the concerned worker. At the request of the petitioner, the proceeding before the Enquiry Officer was adjourned from time to time. It appears from the order of the Labour Court as contained in Annexure-9 to this writ application that the petitioner appeared before the Labour Court from time to time and also cross examined one witness, but refused to cross examine the other witnesses of the respondent company. It appears from the order of the Labour Court as contained in Annexure-9 to this writ application that the petitioner appeared before the Labour Court from time to time and also cross examined one witness, but refused to cross examine the other witnesses of the respondent company. It further appears that the petitioner himself was examined as witness no.1 before the domestic enquiry. Again he has filed a petition before the Enquiry Officer praying therein to allow him to be represented through one Ramji Prasad and the Labour Court has allowed the prayer of the petitioner to be represented by the said workman, but the said Ramji Prasad did not appear to represent the case of the petitioner for the reasons best known to him. It further appears from the order as contained in Annexure-9 to this writ application that the hearing of the proceeding was adjourned from time to time at the request of the petitioner and ultimately when the petitioner did not appear on the next adjourned date, the proceeding was concluded ex-parte. The Enquiry Officer has intimated the petitioner that if he fails to appear on the next adjourned date, the proceeding will be decided ex-parte. Even them the petitioner did not appear and ultimately the domestic enquiry was concluded ex-parte. In the domestic enquiry, the first two charges have not been proved, however the charges 3 and 4 were proved and accordingly the proceeding of the domestic enquiry was submitted to the disciplinary authority namely the Resident Engineer. The Resident Engineer, after issuing notice to the petitioner to show cause as to why he should not be dismissed from the service of the company on the findings recorded in the domestic enquiry. The show cause was filed and after perusing the show cause and the relevant materials on record, the petitioner's service was terminated by order dated 15.2.82, a copy of which is made Annexure-6 to this writ application. 4. Being aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner filed an application before the Labour Court under Section-33A of the Industrial Disputes Act, challenging the dismissal, which was registered as Misc. Case no.2 of 1972. 4. Being aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner filed an application before the Labour Court under Section-33A of the Industrial Disputes Act, challenging the dismissal, which was registered as Misc. Case no.2 of 1972. The petitioner has challenged the order of dismissal firstly on the ground that no proper opportunity was given to the petitioner before the domestic enquiry, inasmuch the prayer made before the Enquiry Officer to allow him to be represented by Sri Gupta has been rejected, which is wholly illegal and uncalled for. It was further alleged that the petitioner was not given an opportunity to cross examine the witnesses examined on behalf of the company. It is then alleged 'that out of four charges, two having not been proved, the order of dismissal by the respondent company is unjustified. It is stated that the two witnesses have been examined on behalf of the workmen including the petitioner himself, but the name of other witness does not find place in the order dated 20.12.73. The labour court has discussed the evidence of the witnesses examined on behalf of the company from paragraphs 11 to 15 and ultimately held that the domestic enquiry conducted by the enquiry officer against the petitioner is fair and valid, On the quantum of punishment, the labour court has held that it will be considered later on the basis of the evidence available on the record. Ultimately by order dated 30.12.86, the Labour Court on the basis of the findings arrived at by the Enquiry Officer has held that the two charges namely the charge no.3 and 4 as quoted above have been proved beyond all reasonable doubts and accordingly the orders of dismissal was held to be valid. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has challenged the order dated 20.12.1973 and 30.12.1986, passed by the labour Court firstly on the ground that the order rejecting the prayer of the petitioner to be represented by Sri Gupta is uncalled for and not sustainable in the eye of law. It is submitted that the petitioner has been seriously prejudiced in his defence by the action of the enquiry officer in not allowing Shri Gupta to represent the case of the petitioner, which is against the principles of natural justice. It is submitted that the petitioner has been seriously prejudiced in his defence by the action of the enquiry officer in not allowing Shri Gupta to represent the case of the petitioner, which is against the principles of natural justice. It is next submitted that inspite of the prayer having been made, the petitioner was not given an opportunity to cross examine the witnesses of the company after recalling them and thereby the petitioner has been seriously prejudiced in his defence. The last submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that having regard to the fact that the two charges having not been proved by the company, the punishment of dismissal is not in proportion to the charges proved in the domestic enquiry. In support of his contention learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon a decision in the case of The Board of Trustees of the Port of Bombay vs. Dilip Kumar Raghavendranath Nadkarni and ors. reported in (1983 L.I.C. 419) as also in the case of India Photographic Company Ltd. and ors. vs. Saumitra Mohan Kumar (1984 L.I.C.42). The decision relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner will not help him in the facts and circumstances of the case as the facts of aforesaid cases relied upor is entirely different to that of the instant case. In the case in hard, the prayer of representation through Sri Gupta was disallowed on the ground that Mr. Gupta is one of the active member of the Union and if he is allowed to appear before the domestic enquiry, there may be some disturbance and in my view, the labour court has rightly rejected the representation of Mr. Gupta in order to maintain congenial atmosphere during the domestic enquiry. 6. That apart sufficient opportunity was given to the petitioner to represent his case before the Enquiry Officer, but deliberately the petitioner did not appear before the Enquiry Officer inspite of the repeated notice sent to him. Sri Gupta was not allowed to represent the case since he was one of the active member of the Union, however, the petitioner was allowed to be represented by another workman, but even then he has not appeared for the reasons best known to him. From the facts stated above, it is apparent that the sufficient opportunity was given to the petitioner to represent his case before the domestic enquiry. From the facts stated above, it is apparent that the sufficient opportunity was given to the petitioner to represent his case before the domestic enquiry. As stated above, he has himself examined as a witness but refused to cross examine the witness examined on behalf of the management and as such it cannot be said that the proper opportunity was not given to him to cross examine the witnesses. Accordingly I am of the view that the findings recorded by the Labour Court on the issue cannot be interfered with by this Court sitting in its writ jurisdiction. As regards the submission that he has been seriously prejudiced by disallowing Mr. Gupta to represent his case, it appears that the enquiry officer has not allowed Mr. Gupta in order to maintain peace during the domestic enquiry, ableit the enquiry officer very rightly allowed the petitioner to be represented by any other co-workman and ultimately on the request of the petitioner one Ramji Prasad was allowed to represent the case of petitioner, but even then he has not appeared for the reasons best known to him. From the findings recorded by the labour court, it appears that the petitioner was throughout negligent in prosecuting his case before the domestic enquiry. As regards the quantum of punishment is concerned, as stated above, out of the four charges, no doubt charges 1 and 2 have not been proved, but the last two charges have been proved beyond all reasonable doubts which are the serious charges of sabotage and accordingly the order of dismissal has been passed by the disciplinary authority which has been ultimately confirmed by the labour court. The charge of sabotage is a major charge has been proved against the petitioner which is alone sufficient to terminate the services of the petitioner. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the counsel for the respondent in detail and perused the materials on record including the findings recorded by the labour court. The findings recorded are based upon the correct appraisal of the evidence on record and as such, I am not inclined to interfere with the same. This writ application is accordingly dismissed.