4 charges were brought against the workman which are available at page 15 (Annexure 1). It is not necessary to go to other charges. We are concerned only with charge No.4 as that was found to be proved in the domestic enquiry. Charge No.4 is quoted below : “That you did not initiate any measure to report the incident to the management and as such the company's truck was allowed to remain on the road unprotected for two consecutive nights which not only indicates gross negligence on your part in discharging your duties but is also highly unbecoming of a motor vehicle driver holding position of trust and responsibility. It was only through other sources management received information when the company's truck could be rescued by then.” The workmen was dismissed. As against that there was a reference being Reference Case No. 14/93 before the Presiding Officer, Labour Court at Dibrugarh. The Labour Court in para 12 of the judgment found as follows : “12. That evidence on record thus disclosed the following. The workman concerned did not drive the company's truck along a kutcha road inside Bokel TE for satisfying his own needs. Passengers on board the truck alighted therefrom singly or in batches at various places of their residence according to his or their convenience, the last end point of such destination of these passengers having never been defined in so many words by the Manager of the garden while detailing him with the task, the order being just verbal. This apart, that unlawful gain and workmen could derive by detaining the truck for more than a day is difficult to conceive. It could not be used for taxi purposes also. No adverse inference thus can be drawn for the workmen's failure to examine the particulars boy from the Monosha Temple or the Bokel TE Asstt Manager in absence of evidence of any oblique motive on the workmen's part in driving the vehicle inside the Bokel TE along kutcha road. Rather the management's failure to examine anybody from the search party allegedly deputed by it to trace out truck, raises an adverse inference against it. Rather the management's failure to examine anybody from the search party allegedly deputed by it to trace out truck, raises an adverse inference against it. Secondly, there is evidence also that the workmen exerted his utmost to lift up the stuck up truck and he succeeded in doing it the next day and returned the truck to the garden the next day (Monday) night with all articles accompanying it. There was, thus, no insubordination or dishonesty with respect to management's property. All the charges against him vide charge sheet (Ext 1) stand disproved. No evidence is also there of the workman being gainfully employed after his dismissal from service, and no inference could be made in this regard also just from a word or two in the cross-examination of the workman. So the punishment of dismissal of the workmen from service is liable to be substituted by reinstatement with full back wages by exercising powers under section 11A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.” 2. So, it is the finding of fact by the Labour Court that the charge which w as established in the domestic enquiry was also not proved as required and accordingly there was an order of reinstatement. 3. I have heard Mr. GN Sahewalla, learned counsel for petitioner and Mrs Abha Bhattacharyya, learned counsel for respondent No.2. 4. The law on this point has been settled by a catena of decisions of the Apex Court. Learned counsel for respondent No.2 places reliance on a recent decision reported in (1999) 2 SCC 143 (Savita Chemical (P) Ltd vs. Dyes & Chemical Workers' Union & another) wherein the question which arose was that whether the High Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India was justified in interfering with the finding reached by the Labour Court. The answer to this contention was in para 19 of the judgment and that is quoted below: “19. So far as this point is concerned, placing reliance on various decisions of this Court, namely, Hari Vishnu Kamath vs. Ahmed Ishaque, Nagendra Nath Bora vs. Commissioner of Hills Division & Appeals, Assam and Sadhu Ram vs. Delhi Transport Corpn. The answer to this contention was in para 19 of the judgment and that is quoted below: “19. So far as this point is concerned, placing reliance on various decisions of this Court, namely, Hari Vishnu Kamath vs. Ahmed Ishaque, Nagendra Nath Bora vs. Commissioner of Hills Division & Appeals, Assam and Sadhu Ram vs. Delhi Transport Corpn. Learned senior counsel for the appellant submitted that unless there was a patent error committed by Labour Court, the High Court under Article 227 could not have interfere with the findings of the Labour Court as if it was hearing an appeal, a There cannot be any dispute on the said settled legal position. Under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the High Court could not have set aside any finding reached by the lower authorities where two views were possible and unless those findings were found to be patently bad and suffering from clear errors of law. As we have aleady discussed earlier while considering points 1 and 3, the findings reached by the Labour Court on the relevant terms were patently erroneous and dehors the factual and legal position on record. The said patently illegal findings could not have been countenanced under Article 227 of the Constitution of India by the High Court and the High Court would have failed to exercise its jurisdiction if it had not set aside such patently illegal findings of the Labour Court. Consequently on this point the appellant has no case. Point 4 is, therefore, answered in the negative against the appellant and in favour of the respondent.” 5. Nothing has been shown to me that the finding reached by the Labour Court was patently erroneous and dehors the factual and legal position on record. 6. That being the position, there is no merit in this writ application and as such the same stands dismissed. Stay order, if any, passed earlier shall stand vacated.