JUDGMENT - N.J. PANDYA, J.:---The petition is filed by the company employer against the order of reinstatement and back wages dated 14-6-1996 given by way of Award in Reference (IDA) 207 of 1982, Exh. U, page 360. It is passed under caption of final award i.e. Part II Award. This was preceded by Part I Award, copy of which is produced at page 248, Exh. L. 2. The Reference has a root in the action that was taken by the company against the respondent -workman as per charge sheet dated 21-4-1975, Exh. A page 45 having a statement of account annexed to it at Exh. B page 47. 3. At the relevant time, the respondent-workman was working with the company and as a part of his duty had to draw substantial amount from the cashier of the company and used it for paying the sailor who might have come to the port of Bombay in different vessels as also to defray the expenses of the ship and its crew. The sailors are referred to as ratings. 4. In order to understand the nature of transaction, one may look at the very first entry, exh. B, page 47. The name of the ship is in the first column and against that amount drawn is shown to be Rs. 75,000/-. This happened on 29-3-1974. adjustment against that amount was shown on 25-4-1974 to the tune of Rs. 43,864,25. This left a balance of Rs. 31,135.75. 5. Different amounts are shown to be outstanding against different ships. In the said Exh. B, page 47, the total of which comes to Rs. 1,75,546,80, the adjustment shown and referred to above as an incident would indicate that of the total amount drawn in respect of the given ship, the amount adjusted against it was in fact spent. The balance was with the person who has drawn the money and he has to account for the same. While accounting he may show further spending and in the process, if he has over spent he may raise demand against the company for the short fall. Correspondingly, if there is excess amount left with the person who has initially drawn the money against the given ship, he has to refund the same. 6. The case of the company is that having drawn the different sums as shown in Exh. Correspondingly, if there is excess amount left with the person who has initially drawn the money against the given ship, he has to refund the same. 6. The case of the company is that having drawn the different sums as shown in Exh. B in respect of different ships, as set out in the said Exh. B, there remains to be accounted for by respondent -workman to the tune of Rs. 1,75,546.80. As stated above, he may account for it by submitting vouchers, bills and receipts. He may eventually account for an amount in excess of the sum shown as outstanding or if anything remained to be accounted for, the balance has to be refunded by him. The case of the company is that the workman has done neither. 7. Coming back to Exh. A, page 45 it is in the aforesaid background, the company alleges against the workman that he has not accounted for or made good a sum of Rs. 1,75,546.80 being the debit balance of the portage Bill Advance account as on 31-3-1975. In the subsequent paragraph, the workman was informed that he was charged for misappropriation of the said amount and/or fraud and/or dishonesty in connection with the company's fund and causing loss to the company. 8. The enquiry was held, where as per Exh. C. page 48 the Enquiry Officer, Mr. R.P. Vachha asked him whether the workman has received the letter dated 21-4-1975 and having got an answer in the affirmative, he was further asked whether the workman has understood its contents. The answer to this question is also in the affirmative. Thereafter he was asked whether he is guilty or not and his answer is not guilty. Then the question is put whether the workman would wish to have anybody's assistance at his enquiry. This is in keeping with what was intimated to the workman in the said letter dated 21-4-1975, Exh. A, page 45. In the paragraph appearing at page 46, the workman was informed that he is permitted to avail of the assistance of the fellow employee working in the company's office to assist him at the enquiry. To the aforesaid question of assistance put by the Enquiry Officer to the workman, the reply is in the negative. Thereafter Mr. A, page 45. In the paragraph appearing at page 46, the workman was informed that he is permitted to avail of the assistance of the fellow employee working in the company's office to assist him at the enquiry. To the aforesaid question of assistance put by the Enquiry Officer to the workman, the reply is in the negative. Thereafter Mr. K.S. Bhandarkar was examined and other witnesses were also examined and after recording the statement of the workman, the Enquiry Officer submitted his report as per Exh. D, page 103. The statement of the co-workman is dated 9-5-1975 at page 98. The Enquiry Officer held the workman guilty and pursuant to that report, finally by letter dated 15-5-1975, the services of the workman came to be terminated. The termination letter is Exh. E, page 105. 9. Going strictly by chronology the workman had moved the Court under the provisions of Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practice Act, 1971, after two years of the event. As per the record in the said complaint of unfair labour practice, he had given the date for his termination as 15-5-1976. This complaint was opposed on the ground for limitation and the matter came to an end by withdrawal of the same. The details of this and subsequent attempt to get it revived will be gone into at appropriate time in the course of this order. This would be necessary because there is a submission made on the basis of section 59 of the said M.R.T.U. P.U.L.P. Act, of there being a bar of approaching the adjudicating authorities under the Central Act i.e Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, if the matter has been destituted once in the authority described under the MRTU PULP Act. Section 59 takes care of various remedies available under the said Act namely the said M.R.T.U. P.U.L.P. Act and B.I.R. Act and the said Central Act i.e. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The provisions is to the effect that having chosen to pursue the remedy under any of these Acts, the remedy under the remaining Acts will be barred. 10. So far as this aspect is concerned, the trial Court has gone on the basis that the matter under the M.R.T.U. P.U.L.P. Act, was initiated by the workman while the Reference under Industrial Disputes Act, is at the instance of the company. 11. 10. So far as this aspect is concerned, the trial Court has gone on the basis that the matter under the M.R.T.U. P.U.L.P. Act, was initiated by the workman while the Reference under Industrial Disputes Act, is at the instance of the company. 11. As stated above, the trial Court passed the preliminary or first award on 21-9-1991 and having come to the conclusion that the enquiry is not proper, he proceeded to record evidence himself and passed the final order. The petitioners, are therefore, challenging both the Award. 12. The petitioners do maintain that the decision of the Part I award rendered on 21-9-1991 is totally uncalled for. After reading the same, the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners has attacked the finding of the trial Court on all counts. 13. The first infirmity as found by the trial is that no proper charge-sheet was framed. However, if one turn to page 44 r.w. page 47, it is quite clear that the respondent -workman very well knew of the allegation he has to meet with and what charges he has to answer. If any authority in that regard is needed, 1996 Bank.J. 390 (S.C.) in the case of (State Bank of Bikaner Jaipur and others v. Prabhu Dayal Grover)1, is the answer. There also a letter was issued setting out the allegation against the workman. If the workman has understood the position clearly which he did, as could be seen from the enquiry papers already referred to above, the trial Court should not have unnecessarily detain giving importance to the manner in which the charges were communicated. On page 48, relevant questions were put in the course of enquiry. Nowhere it is the case of the workman that he could not defend himself properly because the authorities have not clearly conveyed to him. The trial Court, in my opinion, has clearly erred in this regard. 14. The trial Court has held that the workman was not the only person dealing with cash and there were set of keys to the safe and hence misappropriation cannot be said to be the work of only one man namely the respondent-workman. 15. If one turns to page 45, r.w. page 47, what has been imputed is the failure on the part of the workman to account the same which he has admittedly drawn in respect of different ships. 15. If one turns to page 45, r.w. page 47, what has been imputed is the failure on the part of the workman to account the same which he has admittedly drawn in respect of different ships. The trial Court apparently swayed by the fact as alleged by the workman that in all Rs. 1,27,000/- were missing from the safe and this could have been done by any one because more than one set of keys were floating around. 16. As has been presently seen, the uncertainty of the keys has come to an end from June, 1974, because by that time widow of the erstwhile boss of the workman one Mr. Shetty had come to the petitioners' office with an envelope containing keys. This was handed over to the workman and on his return from leave, in turn it was the workmen who had handed it over to Mr. Bhandarkar, his boss at the time of incident. 17. In this background, four items appearing on page 47 after the month of June, 1974, will be taken into effect if there be any of the defence of floating keys. These four entries are of the month of November, 1974 and December, 1974. I, therefore accept the submission made on behalf of the petitioners. 18. The trial Court has gone on the basis that the workman was sick and therefore there is a possibility of person who was working in his place who could have taken the money away. However, it is not his case that on the relevant dates as shown at page 47, the workman was sick. For this period of April, 1974 to December, 1974, the workman was reported sick during the last phase of December, 1974 and some part of January, 1975. The approach of the trial Court in this regard therefore is not correct. 19. Curiously, the trial Court has also held against the petitioner-company on the basis that the insurance company has already reimbursed the petitioner company to the tune of Rs. 1,24,000/-. If that be so, and if there be any misconduct on the part of the workman reimbursement by itself will not wipe away the misconduct, if any. This may have a bearing on the quantum of punishment if at all the circumstances so warrant. 1,24,000/-. If that be so, and if there be any misconduct on the part of the workman reimbursement by itself will not wipe away the misconduct, if any. This may have a bearing on the quantum of punishment if at all the circumstances so warrant. It may be remembered, that the reimbursement is not by the workman but is obtained by the petitioner-company on account of the prudence that the management is exercising in getting the large sum of cash which its employees were dealing with to be insured by a fidelity insurance policy. The reimbursement by the company having resulted in subrogation, the petitioner as well as the insurance company both have filed the suit against the respondent-workman. No doubt it is the case of the workman that the suit has been dismissed for want of prosecution and about this position the petitioner-company is totally silent which means that the suit though filed has come to an end in the aforesaid manner. 20. However, so far as misconduct is concerned, the reimbursement on the contract of insurance cannot be held against the company or looking from the other angle, in favour of the workman if he is found guilty. 21. At page 254, the trial Court comes to the conclusion that when the workman did not avail of his services, he gave that answer without understanding the implication. It is difficult to understand on what basis the trial Court has come to this conclusion. If one turns again to page 48, one after the other, systematically questions have been put and answers have been recorded. For the assistance and the reply of the workman the question and answer could be quoted from page 48. Q.4 : Mr. Pereira do you wish to have anybody's assistance at this enquiry? Ans : Not at all. If one looks at the manner in which cross-examination has been done of the witnesses by the workman, as also Exh. 10 in the trial Court which is Exh. 3 annexed to the affidavit in reply, it is not possible to hold even for the moment that the workman is not able to think or is not able to understand. The said Exh. 3 annexed to the reply-affidavit is dated 27-1-1975 said to have been submitted in the month of April, 1975. In any case it precedes the enquiry and is virtually therefore his defence. The said Exh. 3 annexed to the reply-affidavit is dated 27-1-1975 said to have been submitted in the month of April, 1975. In any case it precedes the enquiry and is virtually therefore his defence. He has relied on it in the course of his enquiry also and it is in the enquiry papers the said Exh. 3 is referred to as Exh. 10. This conclusion of the trial Court, therefore, cannot be accepted. 22. The trial Court is also carried away by the fact that second show cause notice was not given but then this will depend on a disciplinary and Appeal Rules governing the parties and if one has to go through the Supreme Court pronouncement in the case of (Mohammed Ramzan Khan)2, 1991 S.C.C. 588, the case is prospective and not retrospective. The said Part I award once if examined in this manner is also in the light of (Maharashtra State Board of Secondary Higher Secondary Education v. K.S. Gandhi)3, (1991) 2 Supreme Court Cases 716, with relevant page 721 in a domestic enquiry while accepting that the strict proof of Evidence Act, do not apply, the standard of proof is also that of preponderance of probabilities. On fact on the said case, it was held that the charges were proved. In the case dealt with by the Apex Court question was that the alleged malpractice in the examination and enquiry into the charge of students/parents and guardians being privy to tampering with moderator's mark sheet to the benefit of students, the only evidence was that of students having confirmed the alterations in the mark sheet. 23. Judged in this background, the evidence as led before the Enquiry Officer which the Industrial Court was not supposed to sit in appeal over, can be correctly said to have led the Enquiry Officer to hold the workman guilty. 24. About the fairness, it is already been seen how he was given an opportunity and how the charge sheet were explained and dealt with. On one occasion if the request of the workman Mr. Kamal Gupte was recalled for cross-examination as could be gathered from page 88, no where it is the grievance of the workman that during the enquiry he could not defend himself properly or that opportunity was denied. 25. It is pertinent to note that so far as workman was concerned he admits missing of money. Kamal Gupte was recalled for cross-examination as could be gathered from page 88, no where it is the grievance of the workman that during the enquiry he could not defend himself properly or that opportunity was denied. 25. It is pertinent to note that so far as workman was concerned he admits missing of money. He attribute it to theft on two different occasions which as noted above, could not have taken place on or after June, 1974. So far as the amount shown at page 47 against each of the ship is concerned, the workman does not deny the same. About the balance also he is unable to explain and he cannot because if he received the same in respect of the ship and has accounted it partly the balance has to be with him. The allegation is that the balance that he has with him has not been accounted for. The theft may or may not have any bearing on it. It will be examined hereafter. The trial Court ought to have held that there was fiduciary relationship between the petitioner management and the respondent-workman. This Court in its Division Bench had an occasion to deal with the case of bank's cashier reported in 1 C.L.R. 455 in the case of (Bank of Baroda others v. Arvindkumar Hiralal Mehta)4, and had held that a person holding the post of cashier if is not able to explain the shortage of rupees one lakh, the bank authorities cannot be faulted for dismissing such employee from the service. This decision in my opinion squarely applies to the case. 26. With regard to the communication in the stand of the workman that somebody else might have taken the money, the aforesaid annexure to the affidavit is the main stake of the workman defence. The statement at page 98 after production of the said Exh. 3 in the enquiry is Exh. 10. refers to his having given a receipt in writing to the effect that one set of key is with him. This he has done somewhere in the month of December, 1971. He, therefore, felt that if at all he reports theft because there is only one set of key which is admittedly with the workman, the disappearance of cash will pass on to him. 27. This he has done somewhere in the month of December, 1971. He, therefore, felt that if at all he reports theft because there is only one set of key which is admittedly with the workman, the disappearance of cash will pass on to him. 27. However, with regard to the various entries and receipts which he is supposed to submit which account for the money he has drawn and if there be any balance which he is supposed to return to the company, his stand has been that files were suddenly missing. He has also taken a stand that quite a sum of money was paid by him out of his own pocket to attend to the company work. According to him when his attention was drawn to the outstanding entry by January, 1975, it would adjust over Rs. 60,000/- against the outstanding of more than two lakhs. After this adjustment, only the latter in form of charge has been given which has led the workman to believe that receipt and transfer entries have been tampered with. 28. Further, he declares that he could trace the entry from the G.C.D cash book, voucher file etc. but they never came to light. What happened thereafter the workman is silent. 29. He proceeds further at page 99 to explain the method followed by him in respect of sailors who would be kept assured prior to the joining of ship and other related matters. In that he clearly admits at page 100, lines 5 and 6 that there might be instances if the balance of advance remaining in his possession. Further situation with regard to article of agreement is referred to in the following line and in the 10th line he again reiterates that there could be a situation of large balance remaining is his hand. In fact it is to say that the turn over in the concerned year was about rupees forty eight lakhs and therefore his having company cash with him or having balance in his possession in respect of different ships was hardly a matter of surprise. In fact according to him is a matter of routine. Thereafter he refers to the additional set of keys. 30. Having dealt with the first part of the award in the aforesaid manner, and in the background of admission containing the statement read with said Exh. In fact according to him is a matter of routine. Thereafter he refers to the additional set of keys. 30. Having dealt with the first part of the award in the aforesaid manner, and in the background of admission containing the statement read with said Exh. 3 if one turns to the second aspect of the matter namely the recording of evidence before the trial Court again it would be clear that the trial Court could not have held in favour of the workman. This will be discussed at length hereafter. Presently, I will be turning to the legal submission in this regard on behalf of the petitioners. The legal submission is that if the part I award is not sustainable, the trial Court has no jurisdiction to enter into the enquiry again and pass the final award. For this purpose, case reported in (Workman of M/s Firestone Tyre Rubber Co. of India v. The Management)5, 1973 Lab.I.C. 851, has been relied on by the learned Counsel for the petitioners. In paragraph 27 a situation has been enumerated and categorized. This has been done in the background of the submission made before the Apex Court after that the introduction of section 11-A in the Industrial Dispute Act 1947, law has been completely changed. No doubt item No. 3 in paragraph 27 at page 862 indicates that Tribunal has no jurisdiction to sit in judgment over the decision of the employer as an appellate body. The interference with the decision of the employer will be justified only when the finding arrived at and the enquiry are perversed and the management is guilty of victimization, unfair labour practice or mala fide. 31. However, at page 865, para 37 after examining the position at law prior to the amendment and after the amendment lead to introduction of section 11-A in the said Act, the Apex Court clearly holds that tribunal is given full power to go into the evidence and satisfy itself. The tribunal has come to the conclusion either way and therefore the tribunal will have to appraise the evidence for itself. Ultimately it may held that the misconduct itself is not proved or that the misconduct proved does not warrant punishment of dismissal or discharge. The tribunal has come to the conclusion either way and therefore the tribunal will have to appraise the evidence for itself. Ultimately it may held that the misconduct itself is not proved or that the misconduct proved does not warrant punishment of dismissal or discharge. Therefore, in the case before me, the tribunal gives the first award and thereafter proceed to record evidence for the twin purpose of deciding whether the misconduct is proved and if so whether the dismissal is justified. As per the Apex Court judgment, it is entirely left to the tribunal for being satisfied for that purpose which has power to appreciate the evidence. Whether the enquiry is held fair and guilt is proved or in the case where the enquiry is not held to be found, both categories are now put on par as categorically held in paragraph 37 last line page 886 of the said judgment. In my opinion it is therefore not possible to hold that the tribunal has no jurisdiction. 32. This has taken the learned Counsel to the aspect of onus of proof. It was strongly urged that if in the part I award, the finding of the trial. Court is against the employer, the impression wrongly prevails that the employer should establish the correctness of his action. Relying upon the decision of this Court reported in 1994(II) C.L.R. 51 in the case of (Narang Latex and Dispersions Pvt. Ltd. v. S.V. Suvarna another)6, the submission on behalf of the petitioners is that it was workman who has to establish that the action of the employer is illegal, defective or that he has been victimized. The tribunal held that the company has not proved misconduct. As per the aforesaid submission it will be for the workman who assailed the action of the employer has to prove and the burden will be entirely on him. The said judgment given by the Division Bench of this Court and the issue in the enquiry was whether the proceedings of domestic enquiry were fair and just and the fairness and justness be set by the workman. The said judgment given by the Division Bench of this Court and the issue in the enquiry was whether the proceedings of domestic enquiry were fair and just and the fairness and justness be set by the workman. The learned Judges relying on the principle that the burden would lie on a party who would fail if no evidence is led by either of the parties held that it would be for the workman to lead evidence first in order to show pertaining of proof namely a party who would felt if no evidence is led by either side, hold that burden was on the workman. 33. In the instant case the tribunal was dealing with the alleged misconduct of the workman. This was asserted by the employer. Going by the aforesaid principles of law, if no evidence was led, it was the employer who would fail and therefore the burden is clearly on the employer. The defence as disclosed by the workman is to the effect that the action is illegal, effective and result of victimization. This will have to be established, of course after the initial burden is discharged by the employer. 34. Praying that these are proceedings essentially of civil nature, the onus will keep on shifting and initially the burden having discharged by the petitioner, the workman has to establish his defence and if need be by way of rebuttal the employer may lead evidence. Ultimately, the matter will be decided by preponderance of probabilities. I therefore do not agree with the learned advocate with this regard. This will take me to Part II of the Award, for which purpose reference was made in the statement of claim at page 137. Thereafter evidence paper from page 257 onwards were referred to. In the statement of claim, allegations are of malafide. Further, it refers to request of Mr. Bhandarkar directing the workmen to go to the police station as it relates to the complaint filed by the company against the some of its workman. Thereafter at page 141, he refers to various accounts as also to the act of some of his co-employees in paragraph (g). Thereafter he refers to the opening of safe and cash being handled by others. He is assailing the enquiry on various counts as to the competence of the officer and non production of certain documents. 35. Thereafter at page 141, he refers to various accounts as also to the act of some of his co-employees in paragraph (g). Thereafter he refers to the opening of safe and cash being handled by others. He is assailing the enquiry on various counts as to the competence of the officer and non production of certain documents. 35. Ordinarily if the management is relying on the documentary evidence in support of its allegation and if they are not produced, it will prove to be vital. However, in the instant case it was not the management but the workman who wanted certain documents to be produced. He, therefore gave an application also in the trial Court where the management did respond by inviting the workman and his advocate to give and inspect the document. On the day of the visit, no document could be shown as according to the management the document were not available. The management, therefore, filed an application in the trial Court requesting that they be exonerated of the application sic obligation undertaken by them of showing the documents. To this there was a reply Exh. U-42 filed by the workman. 36. However, the fact remains that no order ever was passed by the trial Court for production of document. It is in this connection, reliance is placed on 1974(II) L.L.J. 156 in the case of (20th Century Fox Corp. (India) Pvt. Ltd. v. F.H. Lala and others) 7. The case is relied on by the management. It is with regard to the relevance of the document and after referring to the powers of the Industrial Court, the Division Bench of this Court also referred to Order IX, Rule 22 C.P.C. and held that the parties who seek document has to satisfy and make out a case that they are relevant and necessary. The provisions of discovery and inspection as provided in the code or as provided in the rules under I.D.B. Act are not meant for fishing enquiry. They are meant for furthering the cause of justice and therefore the document sought has to have some connection with the matter on hand especially when document are not satisfied and vague and general request is made. Obviously, the management cannot be faulted for non production of document. They are meant for furthering the cause of justice and therefore the document sought has to have some connection with the matter on hand especially when document are not satisfied and vague and general request is made. Obviously, the management cannot be faulted for non production of document. In any case it has to be established that the documents are either in possession or power of the parties who is called upon to produce the same. In absence thereof, non production cannot be held against the management. The aforesaid judgment, therefore, squarely applies to the facts of the present case. 37. As it was done by the management before the Enquiry Officer, before the trial Court also they succeeded in making out their case as alleged in the said charge sheet page 45 r.w. page 47. This case of theft is taken into consideration along with the story of Mrs. Shetty returning the set of keys. It becomes clear that by June, 1974 the keys were accounted for and for the knowledge of the workman as well as of the management they were with Mr. Bhandarkar. In any case this has happened in the month of June, 1974 and the transactions in relation to the four entries during the month of January and December therefore still remained unexplained and the defence of case being available to persons other than the workman will not help him. 38. The so called theft is also for Rs. 1,27,000/- in two parts. The first is the theft of Rs. 80,000/- and the second is of Rs. 40,000/-. Upto the month of June, 1974 the amount set out at page 47 works out to Rs. 97,000/ and odd. Once again the theory of theft could not help him because again he felt short of the amount said to have been stolen according to the workman. Admittedly he has drawn the amount, drawing being related to a particular ship he has to account for the same against the spending in relation to that ship. If it is more than what he has drawn, he can claim it back from the management if he is not repaying. What is in question therefore is his not accounting shipwise the money that he has admittedly drawn. 39. If it is more than what he has drawn, he can claim it back from the management if he is not repaying. What is in question therefore is his not accounting shipwise the money that he has admittedly drawn. 39. Going by the theory of floating the case of theft could at the most means that the amount represents transaction in relation to various ships was left by the petitioner in the same and out of the total sum according to him in two parts the amount came to be stolen to the extent of Rs. 1,27,000/-. This may have bearing on the total outstanding amount supposed to be in cash but that is not the case put against him by the management. They have called upon him for the money that he has drawn on the basis of the arrival of each of the ship set out in the said page 47. To this, he has no answer except that he has accounted partly and due to shortage of time and other related reasons, he was not able to finish the paper work. It is on record that the company did render him additional hands so that paper work be completed. On the part of his exercise, he could only find certain files from the cabinet of one of his colleagues Mr. Lobo. His statement, Exh. 3 before the Enquiry Officer as also the stand taken all through out, clearly indicates that by very nature of the operation that he was engaged in, very large amount of cash was required and just to finish the task on hand and see that payment to the sailor of each of the ship is not unnecessary delayed and the work of the company is carried out smoothly, he did utilise money drawn in respect of one ship to make payment in relation to another ship. 40. In this background, the said theory of theft will not bear scrutiny. Apart from the fact that except for alleging the same there is no material whatsoever in support thereof in the background of the allegations. Petitioners in my opinion it is totally irrelevant. 41. In this situation if the victimization is pleaded, it will have no meaning. Of course onus will be on the workman to prove misconduct being an antecedent to victimization, obviously the workman would fail in this regard. Petitioners in my opinion it is totally irrelevant. 41. In this situation if the victimization is pleaded, it will have no meaning. Of course onus will be on the workman to prove misconduct being an antecedent to victimization, obviously the workman would fail in this regard. In this connection reliance is placed on 1976 Lab.I.C. 4 in the case of (M/s. Bharat Iron Works v. Bhagubhai Balubhai Patel and others)8, particularly paragraphs 7 to 10 thereof. 42. On behalf of the workman it was very seriously urged that as per page 45, charge sheet, assuming for the sake of argument that as per the charge sheet wordings are not accounted for 'or' not made good. The amount involved is Rs. 1,75,000/-. As against that Insurance company settled the claim for Rs. 1,01,303.10 and in the suit claim has been made for Rs. 1,89,954.03. After setting all the outstandings of the workman, final claim is Rs. 1,69,693.75. The argument is that when the management itself is uncertain about the money that it has to recover from the workman, how they expect for the workman to account for or make the same good as alleged in the charge sheet. 43 In my opinion, this is being the question. The enquiry is clearly with regard to the non accounting or not making good the sum of Rs. 1,75,000/- as per page 17. The same is admittedly received by him as set out in column No. 3 of the said statement page 47. The outstanding are shown in the last column. Unless the workman is therefore able to show that either he has made good the same or has accounted for the same, he would remain answerable 44. In the enquiry, the workman had not examined anyone else except himself. In fact at page 290 it has clearly come on record that he does not want to call the witnesses. Before the trial Court one Mr. Machedo has been examined but he mainly talks of existing of another set of key which is no longer in dispute. In the enquiry, the workman had not examined anyone else except himself. In fact at page 290 it has clearly come on record that he does not want to call the witnesses. Before the trial Court one Mr. Machedo has been examined but he mainly talks of existing of another set of key which is no longer in dispute. Interestingly enough at page 274 and 295 upto page 303 entire procedure relating to the operation that the workman had to carry out on behalf of the firm in relation to each of the ship having brought on record by detail cross examination where the workman does admit that he used to draw some of money, used it in relation to each of the ship and account for the same. 45. In this background I have no hesitation in holding that the trial Court ought not to have interfered with the finding of guilt. Even if it were not satisfied as to the outcome of the equity or the enquiry itself, when it did entered into the enquiry in form of recording of evidence in the aforesaid background could not have come to the conclusion that it did. It is totally unwarranted. The finding, therefore, cannot be sustained. 46. This takes me to the question of bar of section 59 of the M.R.T.U. P.U.L.P. Act, section 59 of the Act reads as under:- "59. Bar of proceedings under Bombay or Central Act:--- If any proceedings in respect of any matter falling within the purview of this Act is instituted under this Act, then no proceeding shall at any time be entertained by any authority in respect of that matter under the Central Act or, as the case may be, the Bombay Act; and if any proceeding in respect of any matter within the purview of this Act is instituted under the Central act, or as the case may be, the Bombay Act, then no proceeding shall at any time be entertained by the Industrial or Labour Court under this Act." It is an admitted position that the workman had filed Application No. I.D.A. 3193 of 1979 under section 33(c)(2) of the I.D.A. Act as per Exh. F, page 107. The management had claimed set off which was accepted. F, page 107. The management had claimed set off which was accepted. The Court therefore disposed of the application as per final order at page 120 saying that the claim would be deemed to have been satisfied by way of set off. This order is dated 31-3-1977. 47. The workman has also filed Complaint U.L.P. 283/76 in the Labour Court at Bombay under the provisions of M.R.T.U. P.U.L.P. Act. This came to be withdrawn and again its restoration was sought by filling Misc. Application No. U.L.P. 36 of 1979. That came to be dismissed. Needless to say that in the complaint originally filed and in an attempt to set it revived by subsequent, application after withdrawal, related to this very action of the management. 48. The present Award under challenge by way for this petition has result of the adjudication proceedings under Industrial Disputes Act pursuant to a reference made by the Government. It is in this background that the trial Court has observed that reference is by the Government of Maharashtra and as such it cannot be said to be a complaint or a proceeding initiated in the Labour Court as it is a reference. 49. The wording of section 59 as quoted above are of too general a nature. Only exception that can be carved out is with regard to a matter not falling within the purview of M.R.T.U. P.U.L.P. Act. The unfair labour practice in form of termination order would certainly be a matter falling within the purview of M.R.T.U. P.U.L.P. Act and Reference with regard to that very termination and its legality. The matter under I.D. Act therefore is the same as would have been in form of a complaint referred to above under the M.R.T.U. P.U.L.P. Act. 50. A faint attempt was made on behalf of the workman to make out a case that reference is outside the operation of section 59 and if that be so, reference to the Central Act under section 51 as also to the Bombay Act .i.e. B.I.R. Act wherever there is a reference will have to be taken out of purview of section 59. Firstly, there was nothing to prevent the legislature to make a specific provisions in this regard. Firstly, there was nothing to prevent the legislature to make a specific provisions in this regard. Secondly when the interpretation is called for, if at all it is necessary, the plain reading of the section would govern the matter and appreciating the underlining idea of section 59 which is on one hand to afford different remedies under different Act and on the other to find the person seeking remedy to one forum. The interpretation as to the effect that all the matters under different Acts, if initiated held to be covered by section 59. Only exception would be as to the matter which is outside the purview of M.R.T.U. P.U.L.P. Act. If any authority is needed we have (R.A. Thorat v. Trinity Udyog)9, 1997(1) C.L.R. 824, where the learned Single Judge of this Court referring to earlier Division Bench Judgment of this Court in (Shri Shivaji Agricultural College., Amravati v.Mukhtyar Ahmed)10, reported in 1987 Mah.L.J.646 has held that reference by bar by section 59 of the M.R.T.U. Act. This also was a matter of reference. 51. On behalf of the respondent-workman it was urged that the complaint as filed was time barred and that was the objection taken by the management as preliminary point before the authority under the M.R.T.U. Act. It being time barred, the complaint should be considered non est. Hence section 59 will not be attracted. 52. However, the point of limitation was raised on behalf of the management. The workman had never said in the complaint that though the complaint is barred by limitation, for reasons set out in it, he is claiming either contention or meaning of limitation from a particular date. But for the objection the complaint would have proceeded as if it was within time. That apart section 59 does not make a difference as to complaint being filed within time or not within time. In my opinion, therefore, the submissions made on behalf of the respondent workman as to the bar of section 59 has no substance. As against that the management has succeeded in establishing that the bar is attracted. 53. In the result, the petition succeeds. The order of the trial Court is set aside and the reference is rejected. Petition succeed. *****