Judgment :- P. Sathasivam, J. Aggrieved by the order of the learned Single Judge, dated 23 December 1997, made in W.P. Nos. 10687 of 1990, the management - Madura Coats Ltd., Ambasamudram has preferred Writ Appeal No. 274 of 1998. Against the very same judgment with regard to rejection of back-wages to the extent of 50 per cent, the workman second respondent therein preferred Writ Appeal No. 1485 of 2000. For the convenience, we shall refer the parties as arrayed in the writ petition. The writ petitioner-management, questioning the award of the Labour Court, dated 26 March 1990, in I.D. No. 230 of 1987 has preferred W.P. No. 10687 of 1990 to quash the said award. The case of the petitioner-management is briefly stated hereunder : The petitioner is a textile mill engaged in the manufacture of yarn, cloth and sewing thread. The petitioner employs about 6000 workmen in its factory at Ambasamudram. The second respondent was employed as substitute in the bleaching, dyeing and finishing department in the petitioner-mill. The second respondent had put in at the time of his dismissal nearly two years of service and his last drawn wages was Rs. 895.60. On 3 July 1984 one of the security guards Sethurappan of the petitioner-mill noticed about 6.30 a.m. three pieces of cloth lying just outside the compound wall adjoining the B.D.P. Power house of the petitioner mill. At about 8 a.m. another guard Vellaichamy was posted to look after that area. At about 9 a.m. both the watchmen watching from inside and outside noticed the second respondent carrying a bag going to the place where the cloth pieces were found. When the second respondent picked up the cloth pieces and kept in his bag and started leaving the spot, he was followed by the guard Vellaichamy. On seeing him, the second respondent quickened his steps and finally started running chased by security guard Vellaichamy. The second respondent was brought with the bag of cloth to the main gate house. Subsequently, he was charge-sheeted on 3 July 1984. The enquiry officer submitted a report holding the second respondent guilty of charges and based on the above report, the petitioner issued an order of dismissal, dated 11 July 1984, to the second respondent. The second respondent was brought with the bag of cloth to the main gate house. Subsequently, he was charge-sheeted on 3 July 1984. The enquiry officer submitted a report holding the second respondent guilty of charges and based on the above report, the petitioner issued an order of dismissal, dated 11 July 1984, to the second respondent. Against such dismissal the second respondent raised a dispute which resulted in I.D. No. 230 of 1987, and the same was taken on file by the Additional Labour Court, Madurai.In the preliminary issue, the Labour Court, by order, dated 22 August 1988, set aside the domestic enquiry conducted by the petitioner and permitted both sides to adduce fresh evidence with regard to the charges levelled against the second respondent. Accordingly, fresh evidence was let in and the first respondent passed an award on 26 March 1990 holding that non-employment of second respondent in illegal and directed for his reinstatement with full back-wages and continuity of service. Against the said award, the petitioner preferred the writ petition. The learned Judge, by the order under challenge, confirmed the reinstatement of the second respondent, however, reduced the back-wages to 50 per cent. Against the said order, both the management and the workman preferred the above respective writ appeals. Heard Sri Sanjay Mohan, learned counsel for the management/appellant in Writ Appeal No. 274 of 1998 and Sri R. Ganesan, learned counsel for the workman/appellant, in Writ Appeal No. 1485 of 2000. After taking us through the fresh evidence let in before the Labour Court, the award of the Labour Court and the order of the learned Judge, Sri Sanjay Mohan, would contend that the Labour Court having held that the domestic enquiry is bad, committed an error in not considering the fresh evidence let in before it. He also contended that in the light of the materials placed before it, the contrary findings rendered by the Labour Court cannot be sustained. On the other hand, Sri R. Ganesan would contend that inasmuch as on appreciation of evidence the Labour Court has rightly ordered reinstatement with full service benefits and back-wages to 50 per cent and he prayed for interference by this Court in so far as reduction of back-wages is concerned. On the other hand, Sri R. Ganesan would contend that inasmuch as on appreciation of evidence the Labour Court has rightly ordered reinstatement with full service benefits and back-wages to 50 per cent and he prayed for interference by this Court in so far as reduction of back-wages is concerned. There is no dispute that the Additional Labour Court, Madurai, after considering the rival contentions, has held on 22 August 1988 at the preliminary issue level that the domestic enquiry conducted by the management and findings based thereon are not proper and valid. By saying so, it permitted the management to adduce evidence to prove the charges levelled against the workman. At this stage, a writ petition was filed in Writ Petition No. 14253 of 1988, before this Court to quash the order of the Additional Labour Court, Madurai, dated 22 August 1988, and this Court without going into the merits and demerits of the respective claims in the said writ petition, transferred the Industrial Disputes No. 230 of 1987, from the Additional Labour Court, Madurai, to the principal Labour Court, Madurai, enabling the latter Court to take further evidence. In pursuance of the order of this Court, the workman was examined as W.W. 1 and on the side of the management as many as 9 persons were examined as M.W. 1 to M.W. 9 and Exhibit M1 to M18 marked in support of their stand. Exhibits C1 to C5 were also marked as Court exhibits. As stated earlier, Sri Sanjay Mohan, learned counsel for the management, after taking us extensively through the evidence of workman W.W. 1, management witnesses and the entire documents, would contend that the findings rendered by the Labour Court cannot be sustained and the matter has to be remanded to the Labour Court for fresh consideration. The charge against the workman as that he was in possession of stolen cloth outside the compound wall on 3 July, 1984. He was charge-sheeted for committing theft which is a misconduct as per the management Standing Orders. We have already observed that though domestic enquiry was conducted, the Labour Court even at the preliminary issue stage arrived at a conclusion that the domestic enquiry conducted by the management is bad on various reasons. He was charge-sheeted for committing theft which is a misconduct as per the management Standing Orders. We have already observed that though domestic enquiry was conducted, the Labour Court even at the preliminary issue stage arrived at a conclusion that the domestic enquiry conducted by the management is bad on various reasons. Having found the domestic enquiry is bad, the Labour Court has rightly permitted the management as well as the workman to lead fresh evidence, and fresh evidence was let in by both sides. One Natarajan, security guard of the petitioner/management was examined as M.W. 1. He deposed that he was working as a security guard for 5 years and he asked the other Security M.W. 6 to watch whether any body takes M.O. 3 to M.O. 5 clothes outside the compound. Exhibit M12 is the plan of the management mill. The Labour Court after holding that the plan was not approved by the Planning Department and not drawn according to scale, rejected the same. It is seen from the evidence on the side of the management that in order to identify the compound wall, gates and the actual location where 3 pieces of clothes were lying, a plan has been prepared and marked as Exhibit M12. As rightly argued, the Labour Court is not called upon to verify the correctness or otherwise of the building or in accordance with the rules or norms. The plan has been prepared and marked just to identify certain places to understand the case. In such a circumstance, the rejection of the same on the ground that it was not approved by the planning department cannot be sustained. This is the first error committed by Labour Court in rejecting Exhibit M12. A perusal of the evidence of W.W. 1 shows that he saw the cloth hanging in a tree outside the compound wall and while he was coming to seize them, one person who followed him, took him to the security officer. It is further seen that on seeing the security officer M.W. 1, the workman W.W. 1, after taking the 3 pieces of cloth and putting them in his plastic bag, ran away and after chase, the security guard caught hold of him and handed over to the management for taking further action. After seizure of clothes, his signature was obtained in his statement in 3 places. After seizure of clothes, his signature was obtained in his statement in 3 places. The learned Judge has commented that no reasonable cause has been shown by the management as to why 3 signatures of the workman were obtained. Further, the Labour Court has commented that failure to give a complaint to the police with regard to the said theft is a fatal to the case of the management. We are of the view that merely because the management failed to give a complaint to the police regarding the said theft does not disentitle them from proceeding against the workman under their Standing Orders. In such a circumstance, we are unable to accept the observation of the Labour Court that failure to give a complaint to the police is fatal to the case of the management. This is another error committed by the Labour Court.The management has marked their Standing Order as Exhibit M-11. The Labour Court by referring the Standing Order, particularly S. 18A, after holding that the workman was not given 14 days' notice prior to the dismissal or notice salary, arrived at a conclusion that the order of dismissal has been passed the very next day after the report of the enquiry officer is received. In other words, the learned Judge has concluded that the order of dismissal is contrary to S. 18A of the Standing Order. It is not disputed by Sri R. Ganesan, learned counsel for the workman that the said Standing Order is not applicable to the dismissal of this nature. Here, the management dismissed the workman after conducting a domestic enquiry. As fairly admitted by Sri R. Ganesan, the conclusion of the Labour Court holding that the management failed to follow the Standing Order 18A cannot be sustained. This is the another error committed by the Labour Court. After referring to the sequence of events, namely, that the date of occurrence was 3 July, 1984, that enquiry was conducted on 4 July, 1984, that the enquiry officer submitted his report on 10 July, 1984 and that the order of dismissal was passed on 11 July, 1984, the learned Judge commented the management about the speed in which the enquiry was conducted and about the order of dismissal that was passed within 8 days from the date of occurrence, and found that these events give rooms for suspicion. We are unable to accept the said conclusion. Merely because the management had completed the enquiry and also passed the ultimate order of dismissal within 8 days, in the absence of any complaint or material, we are of the view that the said finding or conclusion is unwarranted. After considering the material evidence, the Labour Court has concluded that the petitioner has not committed any theft inside the mill. In this regard, learned counsel for the management has very much relied on certain admitted portions in the evidence of W.W. 1 and the evidence of the security guards M.W. 1 and M.W. 2. Here again, the Labour Court after holding that if really the petitioner has committed theft of cloth and threw them outside, he should have taken them at 11 p.m. when he left after finishing his work, but he has not done so and only the next morning, around 6.30 a.m., when the security guard was watching as to who committed the theft, the petitioner was caught red-handed when the clothes were taken by him, and in such a circumstance, the security officer would have given complaint to the police authorities. The Labour Court has also observed that failure to make a complaint to the police has created a doubt in this case. We have already referred to this aspect, namely, failure to make a complaint to the police. The Court below has failed to consider the evidence let in on the side of the management, particularly the statements of the security officer as well as the workman concerned.Finally, in the penultimate paragraph (Para. 22), the learned Judge has observed that : ".... In this case, there are so many contradictions in the evidence of the witnesses. It is quite natural in any case. Hence it is not correct to give findings on the basis of contradictions. ..." It is unfortunate that after holding that there are many contradictions in the evidence of the witnesses, the Labour Court has supported or accepted the same by contending that it is natural in any case. We are unable to share the view expressed by the learned Judge. Even in the earlier part of our judgment, we have referred to the conclusion arrived at by the Labour Court that fair and proper domestic enquiry has not been held by the management. We are unable to share the view expressed by the learned Judge. Even in the earlier part of our judgment, we have referred to the conclusion arrived at by the Labour Court that fair and proper domestic enquiry has not been held by the management. In such a circumstance, having allowed both parties to lead additional evidence, it is but proper for the Labour Court to consider the first evidence let in before it and no purpose would be served by again criticising the very same domestic enquiry conducted by the management. As held by the Supreme Court, in Ms. Neeta Kaplish v. Presiding Officer, Labour Court reported in, if opportunity is availed of and evidence is adduced by the management and the workman, the validity of the action taken by the management has to be adjudicated upon on the basis of such fresh evidence. The said procedure has not strictly been followed by the Labour Court. Regarding the scope of writ jurisdiction, correction of error and interference with the findings of High Court under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India, Sri Sanjay Mohan, learned counsel for the management very much relied on a decision in Shama Prashani Raje v. Ganpatrao reported in. The following observation of their Lordships are relevant : "5. ... Undoubtedly, in a proceeding under Arts. 226 and 227 of the Constitution the High Court cannot sit in appeal over the findings recorded by a competent Tribunal. The jurisdiction of the High Court, therefore, is supervisory and not appellate. Consequently Art. 226 is not intended to enable the High Court to convert itself into a Court of Appeal and examine for itself the correctness of the decision impugned and decide what is the proper view to be taken or order to be made. The jurisdiction of the High Court, therefore, is supervisory and not appellate. Consequently Art. 226 is not intended to enable the High Court to convert itself into a Court of Appeal and examine for itself the correctness of the decision impugned and decide what is the proper view to be taken or order to be made. But notwithstanding the same on a mere perusal of the order of an inferior Tribunal if the High Court comes to a conclusion that such Tribunal has committed manifest error by misconstruing certain documents, or the High Court comes to the conclusion that on the materials it is not possible for a reasonable man to come to a conclusion arrived at by the inferior Tribunal or the inferior Tribunal has ignored to take into consideration certain relevant materials or has taken into consideration certain materials which are not admissible, then the High Court will be fully justified in interfering with the findings of the inferior Tribunal. ..." In the light of the pronouncement of the Supreme Court referred to above, we are of the view that on the materials, it is not possible for a reasonable person to come to a conclusion arrived at by the Labour Court. We have already pointed out that the Labour Court has ignored to take into consideration certain relevant materials or has taken into consideration certain materials which are not admissible. In the light of the infirmities in the order of the Labour Court pointed out above, we are fully justified in interfering with the findings of the Labour Court. Inasmuch as the Labour Court has to consider all the materials/aspects afresh, we have no other option except to remit the matter to the second respondent-Principal Labour Court, Madurai for fresh disposal. It is also fairly admitted that during the pendency of these proceedings the workman was paid nearly Rs. 1, 52, 000 under S. 17B of the Industrial Disputes Act pursuant to the orders of this Court. Inasmuch as the dispute has been raised even as early as in 1987, we hereby direct the Presiding Officer, Principal Labour Court, Madurai, second respondent herein to dispose of I.D. No. 230 of 1987 afresh as pointed out above within a period of four months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Inasmuch as the dispute has been raised even as early as in 1987, we hereby direct the Presiding Officer, Principal Labour Court, Madurai, second respondent herein to dispose of I.D. No. 230 of 1987 afresh as pointed out above within a period of four months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Since the workman was being paid salary during these proceedings, we hereby direct the management to continue to pay the same amount till a final order being passed by the Labour Court. With the above observations/directions, both the writ appeals are ordered accordingly. No costs. Consequently, connected C.M.P., is closed.