Judgment :- MANMOHAN SINGH LIBERHAN, C.J. This appeal arises out of an order passed by die Hon'ble Single Judge, allowing the writ petition and upholding the dismissal of the employee as valid. 2. The appellant M. S. Sivaji was employed as typewriter mechanic to discharge the duties of visiting the customers and servicing the type-writers, which were purchased by them from the first respondent-company and were under contract of service. The employee was charge sheeted on May 4, 1984 for claiming travelling allowance and lunch allowance without visiting the customers and servicing their typewriters, i.e., Madras Race Club on April 2, 1984, Central Bank of India on March 14, 1984 and Dominic Anglo Indian Higher Secondary School on March 29, 1984. The employee further customers' signatures on the service cards to authenticate his visits to the customers, which he never did. Finding the explanation of the employee unsatisfactory, an enquiry was ordered for the above referred misconduct on May 14, 1984. The enquiry officer examined the employee's/customers' alleged signatories of service cards, who categorically stated that the service cards do not bear their signatures. 'Me enquiry officer finding the employee guilty of fraud, dishonesty, misconduct in not performing the duties for which he was deployed and claimed allowances by forging the customers' signatures on the service cards, issued a show-cause notice, dated September 10, 1984, why the punishment be not awarded. On failure of the employee to point out any extenuating circumstances in his favour, the employee was dismissed from service on September 30, 1984. Employee raised an industrial dispute, wherein he contended that the enquiry conducted was not fair, there was no rule from whom to get the signature on the service card, the alleged forged signatures were not sent for examination by the handwriting expert, consequently charges do not stand proved and the findings of the enquiry officer cannot be sustained.3. The Labour Court, after recording the evidence of parties, held that the enquiry was fair and proper. On the question of awarding the punishment, while exercising the powers under Sec. 11-A of the Industrial Disputes Act, the Labour Court observed that, on reappraisal of evidence, the conclusion of the enquiry officer that the employee did not visit the customers for servicing the typewriters is valid and cannot be set aside. On the question of awarding the punishment, while exercising the powers under Sec. 11-A of the Industrial Disputes Act, the Labour Court observed that, on reappraisal of evidence, the conclusion of the enquiry officer that the employee did not visit the customers for servicing the typewriters is valid and cannot be set aside. It further found that the service cards do not bear the signatures of the persons representing customers and the same are forged in the of the above finding the Labour Court unit at the employee was only guilty of using the service cards knowing the signatures therein having been forged to his advantage only and that he could not be imputed with the charge of actually forging the signatures of the customers. Resultantly, the Labour Court found that the charge has been partially proved; consequently converted the punishment of dismissal to reinstatement without back-wages, being proportionate to the charges attributed and proved. 4. The employer challenged the award of the Labour Court and, contended that the Labour Court had no jurisdiction while exercising its power under Section11-A of the Industrial Disputes Act to interfere with the punishment awarded in view of the finding rendered that the enquiry was fair. The inference in the punishment is due to misplaced sympathy. The finding rendered by the Labour Court that the employee was not guilty of the charge of himself forging the signatures could not be sustained and is inconsistent with the finding affirmed by the Labour Court. 5. The employee, by way of defence to be treated as cross-objection, took the stand in this Court that no witness came forward to say that he has forged any of the customers' signature; there was no eye-witness in the charge sheet, the names of the customers only were given and not that of the person; no persons were named by the customers to sign in the service cards and the allegation that he went to the extent of forging the customers' signatures are vague and ambiguous, the forged documents were not forwarded to the handwriting-expert for opinion; the employer did not make any attempt to establish that in fact the delinquent employee forged the signatures of the customers and his past record was clean, consequently he is entitled to be reinstated with full back-wages.6. It would be expedient to reproduce the charge framed against the employee in the enquiry, which runs thus : "You have been employed as 'typewriter mechanic' and your duties require you to actually visit customers and service type-writers purchased by them from our company. Our customers have entered into service contracts with ourselves and based on this you were expected to visit customers and carry out necessary service work. You submitted claims, details of which are given herein below to the effect that you actually visited the aforementioned customers and serviced their machines and pursuant to your claim you were paid conveyance allowance and lunch allowance. You went to the extent of forging customers' Customers' Name No. Date Machine Madras Race Club 334338 2-4-84 Central Bank of India 24155 14-3-84 St. Dominic Anglo Indian 109694 Hr. Sec. School 211497 29-3-84 signatures to indicate your alleged visits details of which have been furnished. The aforementioned allegations if proved would constitute serious acts of misconduct namely fraud and dishonesty in connection with company business, failure to carry out lawful activities and falsification of records/documents." 7. The Labour Court, after noticising the defence of the employee in the impugned award, observed as under : "On the basis of the witnesses examined before the enquiry officer, and the evidence available it was clear that the petitioner had not visited on the dates specified to Madras Race Club and St. Dominic Anglo Indian Higher Secondary School. On the same basis, it is very clear that the signatures in the service cards filed, also were not that of 24 Lakshminarayan and Rose Job. Exhibit A-16' is the report of the enquiry officer. The enquiry officer had concluded that the petitioner was found guilty of the charges on the basis of the evidence placed before him The charges levelled against the petitioner are that he forged the signatures of the customers and that he has not carried out his duties according to the rules of the company and if the charges were proved the petitioner 4.1 has wilfully forged the documents. Even though it was proved that the signatures of Lakshminarayan and Rose Job were not theirs, it was not proved that the petitioner had forged their signatures. Even though it was proved that the signatures of Lakshminarayan and Rose Job were not theirs, it was not proved that the petitioner had forged their signatures. If they had to be proved, specimen signatures like Lakshminaryan and Rose Job should have been obtained from the petitioner and the signature in the service card should have been sent to the handwriting experts to obtain their opinion. If the opinion had been given by the experts that the petitioner had signed like that, then we can come to the conclusion that the petitioner had forged the signatures. Till such time, it cannot be said that the management had proved that the petitioner had put the signatures. On the other hand, it can be said that the petitioner knowingly had used the service card with forged signatures and it can be said that to this extent that the charge against the petitioner had been proved. There is no charge against the petitioner that knowingly he forged the documents and he had used them as genuine documents. The charges levelled against the petitioner were that with ulterior motive in a fraudulent manner, he forged the documents and used them. but it cannot be said that he himself had forged them or corrected them. However, it can be said that the petitioner had not actually visited Madras Race Club, St. Dominic Anglo Higher Secondary School, but had shown in the service card as if he had visited them and to this extent only the charges have been proved. Hence it cannot be accepted as correct that the enquiry officer had found the petitioner guilty of all the charges. A portion of the charges mentioned in the charge sheet alone had been proved, i.e., the petitioner had used the forged documents. In the circumstances, though the findings of the enquiry officer cannot be accepted in full, to a certain extent the charges were have been proved and hence we cannot come to the conclusion that the findings were perverse.The petitioner was working in its company since 1980. His past record of service did not disclose that any misconduct had been committed by him. The petitioner had informed that he had claimed less than Rs. 50 as travel and lunch allowances. The respondent management had not stated that it was not correct. His past record of service did not disclose that any misconduct had been committed by him. The petitioner had informed that he had claimed less than Rs. 50 as travel and lunch allowances. The respondent management had not stated that it was not correct. On the contrary, it was suggested that the charges levelled against him are serious and hence the petitioner was dismissed. As already stated by me there is no proof to believe that the petitioner had forged the signatures in the service card; but he had used those documents. The respondent-management had stated that since the petitioner had indulged in fraudulent activities and in view of the serious misconducts committed by him, had been proved, he had been dismissed. I had already told that this charge had not been proved. It can be taken that the petitioner had used the documents with faulty signatures as documents with original signatures and to this extent only it was proved." (Typed as per translation supplied) 8. The Hon'ble Single Judge, after noticing in detail the evidence adduced before the enquiry officer, the findings arrived at by the Labour Court and after making various observations, recorded the stand of the counsel for the employee to the effect : "That from the impugned award it can be said that the employee knowingly had used the service cards with forged signatures and to this extent charges against the employee had been proved but it cannot be said that he himself had forged the signatures. He also contended that the employee had not actually visited the customers but had shown in the service cards as if he visited them and to this extent, the charge has been proved in regard to the charge that the first respondent has stated that the employee knowingly used the forged documents as genuine documents." Thus, the Hon'ble Single Judge accepted the findings of the enquiry officer partly, as accepted by the Labour Court, and further observed that the findings of the enquiry officer were not perverse, though we may hasten to add, the Hon'ble Judge observed in the latter art of the judgment that the signatures were forged by the delinquent. 9. 9. Hon'ble Single Judge, after accepting what has been referred to above in its totality on the facts and circumstances, observed that the employee was the beneficiary of the claim made towards the travelling allowance and the lunch allowance for the job which in fact he never performed. It is not possible to take any other view than one that someone else forged the signatures of the customers for the benefit of the employees. The findings arrived at by the enquiry officer that the employee forged the signatures cannot be termites perverse and even the Labour Court had not observed so. It was further observed that the approach of the Labour Court in its endeavour to convert the punishment of dismissal from service to that of reinstatement without back-wages had been rightly termed to be perverse. It was arrived at for no justifiable reasons by a reasonable prudent man, in view of the totality of the evidence on record and the conclusions arrived at. One cannot lose sight of the fact that a departmental enquiry is a quasi-judicial enquiry and not a criminal trial. The enquiry proceedings and the appreciation of evidence cannot be equated to that of a criminal proceedings and cannot be tested on the anvil and principles of a criminal proceedings in a criminal trial, especially when the employee understood the charge, participated in the enquiry, adduced evidence, cross-examined the witnesses and at no point of time, it could be said that the charges were vague and resulted in prejudice to the delinquent employee. In view of the finding arrived at by the enquiry officer, which was Confirmed by the Labour Court, to the effect that the delinquent employee charged the employer for the visits to the customers for servicing the typewriters, which he, in fact, never, performed, and the signatures on the service card having been denied by the alleged signatories there cannot be any other conclusion possible except on that the delinquent employee forged the signatures of the customers as ahead drawn the money for the job which he never performed which is corroborated by the documentary evidence of the forged signatures on the service cards.10. Learned counsel for the appellant relied on the law laid down in Madras Fertilizers Ltd., Madras v. First Additional Labour Court, Madras, and others 1990 (1) LLN, and Eswaran and Sons Engineers (Private) Ltd. v. Third Additional Labour Court, Madras and another 1997 (4) LLN 307, to the effect that, consideration of past record of service, without giving an opportunity to the workman to have his say, would render the order of punishment invalid and giving of a subsequent opportunity will not cure the defect of rendering the award of punishment a nullity. We find no force in the sub-mission made by the learned counsel for the appellant on facts. Firstly, no past record was taken into consideration, as nothing has been pointed out by the learned counsel that past record of service was taken into consideration. Be that as it is, an opportunity was given to the delinquent after the enquiry, to put forth his case by pointing out extenuating circumstances before imposing the punishment of dismissal, which the delinquent was unable to show either before the enquiry officer or before the Labour Court or before the Hon'ble Single Judge or even before us except saying that the amount involved is paltry. 11. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that the learned Judge could not interfere in finding of facts in exercise of writ jurisdiction and relied on N. Mohandas v. Southern Industrial Polymer's (Private) Ltd., Ranipet (1996-III-LLJ (Suppl)-516)(Mad). There is no dispute with respect to the proposition of law laid down by the said judgment. However, in our considered view, the Hon'ble Single Judge came to the conclusion that accepting the finding of the facts to the effect that the delinquent/appellant never performed his duties for which he was employed by the employer, used the service cards with forged signatures in order to claim travelling and lunch allowances from the employer, thus committed fraud on the employer has only set aside the inference arrived at by the Labour Court after holding that the enquiry was fair. The inference that the signatures were not forged by the delinquent, the finding of the Labour Court invoking the principles of criminal jurisprudence in a domestic enquiry of proving the charge beyond reasonable doubt and not taking into consideration the totality of the facts and circumstances apart from the facts that the inference was perverse came to the conclusion that the service cards could not have been forged by another person than the appellant, who is the beneficiary. We find no error in the same. The inference by the Hon'ble Single Judge is that the findings of the Labour Court cannot be termed to he an interference on finding the facts. Thus, the contention has been noted and rejected rightly.12. Hon'ble Single Judge has rightly come to the conclusion that the Labour Court has interfered with the quantum of punishment without any warrant or justification or plausible reasons. Sympathy shown to the delinquent was a misplaced sympathy on the part of the Labour Court. Quantum of amount of misappropriation is not a relevant factor to judge the misconduct on the facts and circumstances of the case. The employer has lost its faith and the employee has misconducted himself by forging the signatures, claimed false monetary benefits, apart from bringing had name to the employer for not rendering the service to the customers, whom the employer has already charged. On the findings and in view of the gravity of misconduct, the punishment of dismissal from service cannot be said to be disproportionate to the charges established. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed, when once an enquiry found to be fair and suffered from no infirmity, the Labour Courts and the Courts should be slow in interfering with the punishment, unless it is so unconscience warranting interference. 13. In view of the observations made above, we find no force in the appeal and the same is dismissed with no order as to costs.