ORDER : The petitioner who was working in the respondent Bank has called in question the tenability of the award passed by the Central Government. Industrial Tribunal cum Labour Court, Jabalpur in rejecting the claim of the petitioner and holding that the action of the Management in terminating him from service is legal and he is not entitled to any relief. 2. It is the case of the petitioner that he was working as a Head Cashier in the respondent Bank when a chargesheet dated 26-12-1985 Annexure P-1 was issued to him. As the charges were vague and not clear vide Annexure P-2 he requested for particulars to submit a reply. It is the case of the petitioner that in spite of this no clarification was given as such he could not submit his reply to the chargesheet. Thereafter, a Departmental enquiry was ordered and on the basis of a finding given by the Enquiry Officer vide Annexure P-12 dated 16-2-1987, a show cause notice was issued to him proposing to impose punishment of dismissal from service and vide order Annexure P-31 punishment of dismissal from service was imposed. Appeal filed by the petitioner was also rejected and on an Industrial dispute being raised by him, the matter was referred for adjudication to the Central Government Industrial Tribunal cum Labour Court, Jabalpur. 3. The petitioner submitted his reply and statement of claim inter-alia contending that enquiry was not properly conducted, charges were vague, proper opportunity of cross examination was not given to him and the findings of the Enquiry Officer were also perverse. Based on the pleadings of the parties, five issues were framed by the tribunal. Initially a preliminary issue with regard to validity of the Departmental Enquiry was considered and the Tribunal by order dated 24-4-1995 Annexure P-40 held that the enquiry was proper and proceeded to consider the matter on merit and by the impugned award has rejected the claim of the petitioner. 4. Shri H. N. Upadhyay, learned Sr. counsel appearing for the petitioner took me through the evidence and proceedings of the enquiry, the chargesheet and the statement of accounts as contained in Annexure P-13 and P-47 to demonstrate that the charges against the petitioner are not proved, the petitioner has not committed any misconduct, the charges were vague. 4. Shri H. N. Upadhyay, learned Sr. counsel appearing for the petitioner took me through the evidence and proceedings of the enquiry, the chargesheet and the statement of accounts as contained in Annexure P-13 and P-47 to demonstrate that the charges against the petitioner are not proved, the petitioner has not committed any misconduct, the charges were vague. The enquiry was conducted in gross violation of the principle of natural justice, no opportunity was granted to cross examination of the witnesses of the Management and therefore the entire action is liable to be quashed and he is entitled to be reinstated with full back wages. 5. Per contra Shri N. K. Mody, learned counsel appearing for the respondent Bank submitted that the chargesheet has been issued as per the provisions of clause 19.12 of the by-parte statement. A perusal of the chargesheet in question would indicate that the circumstances appearing against the employee have been clearly stated in the said charge memorandum. Full opportunity was granted. If the petitioner wanted he could have himself stated that he wants to cross examine the witnesses. It is submitted by him that the petitioner has not demonstrated the prejudice caused and therefore he cannot assail the proceedings of the Departmental enquiry. That apart, it is submitted by him that the scope of judicial review in such cases are very limited and placing reliance on series of judgments of the Supreme Court in this regard submits that this Court cannot act as an Appellate Authority and reappreciate the findings and come to a different conclusion. Amongst others he invites attention to the judgments of the Supreme Court in the cases of Union of India and another vs. G. Ganayutham, reported in (1997) SCC 463, Union of India vs. K. A. Kittu and others reported in (2001) 1 SCC 65 , Disciplinary Authority Cum-Regional Manager and others, reported in (1996) 9 SCC 69 and judgments of this Court in W. P. No. 322/1999 decided on 25-6-2002 and W. P. No. 523/1997 decided on 18-4-01 and submits that this Court cannot look into the matter. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties. 7. In the present case, the petitioner has not filed the petition directly before this Court invoking jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution but is has assailing an award passed by the Tribunal under the provisions of Industrial Disputes Act. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties. 7. In the present case, the petitioner has not filed the petition directly before this Court invoking jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution but is has assailing an award passed by the Tribunal under the provisions of Industrial Disputes Act. Therefore the consideration of judicial review in this case has to be different from the one which is done when orders of dismissal are assailed directly in a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution. 8. When a Departmental proceeding is challenged directly before this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution, the scope of judicial review is entirely different and in that view of the matter the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the judgments relied upon by Shri Mody and considered by this Court in W. P. No. 322/1999 and 523/1997 will not be applicable. Present is not a case where this Court is exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 in a matter pertaining to review of an administrative decision taken on the basis of finding of guilt recorded against an employee in a Departmental proceeding. On the contrary challenge in the present petition is to an award passed under the provisions of Industrial Disputes Act 1947. That being so, this Court is duty bound to examine as to whether the Tribunal has conducted the proceedings in accordance with the provisions of law laid down in this regard and whether any interference in the said award is called for. 9. It is a well settled principle of law that whenever an industrial dispute pertaining to dismissal or removal of an employee on the ground of misconduct is referred for adjudication to an Industrial Court, Tribunal or Labour Court, the said Court has to first examine as to whether the departmental enquiry conducted against the employee is proper or not. It is only after the aforesaid issue is decided that the Labour Court proceedes to either give opportunity to the employer to prove the misconduct on merit in case it is held that the enquiry is not proper. However, in case it comes to the conclusion that the enquiry is properly held then the Court has to examine the perversity in the finding of the Enquiry Officer, if any, and then the question of propriety of punishment imposed. However, in case it comes to the conclusion that the enquiry is properly held then the Court has to examine the perversity in the finding of the Enquiry Officer, if any, and then the question of propriety of punishment imposed. In view of the above, I propose to examine the proceedings of the Tribunal in the light of the aforesaid principle. After the pleadings were completed the Industrial Tribunal framed five issues. They are reproduced hereinbelow :- 1. Whether the enquiry is proper and legal ? 2. Whether the management is entitled to lead evidence before this Tribunal ? 3. Whether the charge of misconduct are proved on the facts of the case ? 4. Whether the punishment awarded is proper and legal ? 5. Relief and costs? 10. The tribunal proceeded to decide issue No. 1 as a preliminary issue and the same has been decided vide order dated 24-5-1999 (Annexure P-40). The Tribunal held that the enquiry officer gave full opportunity to the workman and that the workman was aware of the charges and no principle of natural justice have been violated. However, after recording so, the tribunal has observed as under :- "The D. E. is fully fair and no principle of natural justice are violated during the domestic enquiry. However, the report of enquiry officer Shri P. C. Jain is perfunctory and without the required reasons and he has not discussed the relevant documents. This type of perfunctory report is bad in law and it will go to show in long way whether the finding of enquiry officer is perverse or not issue No. 1 is an answered in favour of Management. Case is now posted for argument on perversity of findings against the workman and on issue whether the order of dismissal is in accordance with the misconduct proved for final arguments. (Emphasis supplied). 11. From the aforesaid it is clear that the tribunal had come to the conclusion that the report of the enquiry officer is unsustainable, perverse and therefore after having held so, the Tribunal should have proceeded to examine the case in the light of the evidence produced in the enquiry and to decide as to whether on the evidence adduced before the enquiry officer, the charges are proved. The Tribunal was therefore required to decide issue No. 3 on the basis of evidence adduced in the enquiry. The Tribunal was therefore required to decide issue No. 3 on the basis of evidence adduced in the enquiry. A perusal of the award in question dated 18-11-1998 goes to indicate that in para No. 1, the Tribunal has reproduced the order of reference. Thereafter in para No. 2, the Tribunal has indicated the case of the workman concerned. Again para No. 3 is recital of the case of the employer bank, in para 4 it has stated that by order dated 6-2-1995, the enquiry was held to be proper. Thereafter what has been reproduced in para No. 5 is nothing but a reproduction of the allegations contained in the chargesheet. Except for translating allegation from English to Hindi, the Tribunal in para 5 and 6 of the award has done nothing. In fact the finding recorded in para 5 and 6 are reproduction of the allegations in the chargesheet and it cannot be stated that this is a finding with regard to misconduct of the employer based on assessment of the evidence produced in the enquiry. Thereafter, in para 7 the Tribunal has come to its own conclusion without referring to the evidence produced in the enquiry, statement of the petitioner workman given in the enquiry, his defence and the documents thereon. In my opinion, the award of the Tribunal seems to be more perverse then the finding of the enquiry officer in as much as except for narrating the allegations against the petitioner and recording his opinion thereof, Tribunal has not looked into the matter that was produced before the Departmental Enquiry. In fact the Tribunal was required to consider the material on record which included the enquiry record to see whether the charges are proved, or not. The Tribunal was required to consider the same in accordance with the provisions of Section 11-A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. 12. For deciding issue No. 3 the Tribunal was duty bound to consider the evidence of the Management produced in the enquiry, the rebutted evidence and statement of the petitioner employee and after analysing the evidence had to give a finding as to whether the charges were proved or not. The award impugned indicates that this procedure was not followed, the Tribunal has acted without application of mind and in an arbitrary manner has recorded the finding that the petitioner is guilty of the charges levelled against him. The award impugned indicates that this procedure was not followed, the Tribunal has acted without application of mind and in an arbitrary manner has recorded the finding that the petitioner is guilty of the charges levelled against him. For doing so, the award does not indicate for a moment that the Tribunal has considered the evidence and the documents which were on record therefore the tribunal, i.e. the record of the Departmental Enquiry. Thus issue No. 3 was never decided by tribunal in accordance with law. On the contrary, the tribunal committed grave error in holding the petitioner guilty of the charges levelled against him without even considering and referring to the evidence produced in the enquiry. 13. It is well settled principle in Industrial jurisprudence that when the tribunal holds that the enquiry has been properly conducted then the duty is caste upon the tribunal to assess the evidence produced in the departmental enquiry and given its own finding as to whether the charges are proved or not on the basis of the said evidence and as to whether the finding of the Enquiry Officer in this regard is legal. In the instant case, the tribunal itself having held that the finding of the enquiry officer is perverse was duty bound to reassess the evidence produced in the enquiry and give its own finding. In the instant case, the procedure adopted was clearly illegal and was not permissible in law. Accordingly, the finding of the tribunal to the effect that the charges against the workman are proved cannot be sustained. 14. After the insertion of Section 11-A in the Industrial Disputes Act, the jurisdiction and scope of interference by the tribunal is increased. In every case where action is taken after conducting enquiry and a finding of misconduct is arrived at, the Tribunal can give their finding in a proper case to hold that no misconduct is proved. The tribunal can hold that the misconduct even though proved does not warrant punishment of discharge or dismissal. The jurisdiction of the tribunal to interfere with punishment is not confined to cases where punishment is disproportionate. The tribunal can see whether the punishment imposed is commensurate with the gravity of the act of misconduct committed by the workmen. The tribunal can hold that the misconduct even though proved does not warrant punishment of discharge or dismissal. The jurisdiction of the tribunal to interfere with punishment is not confined to cases where punishment is disproportionate. The tribunal can see whether the punishment imposed is commensurate with the gravity of the act of misconduct committed by the workmen. The tribunal in fact has the jurisdiction and power to substitute its own punishment in place of the managerial wisdom once it is satisfied that the order of discharge or dismissal is not justified. In fact after the amendment and incorporation of Section 11-A and in the light of the law laid down by the Supreme Court starting from the case of Workmen of Firestone Tyre and Rubber Co. of India (Pvt. Ltd. vs. Its Management, (1993) 1 LLJ. and subsequent judgment, the tribunal has to examine and decide the dispute in accordance with law laid down in the said case. In the present case as indicated hereinabove, the Tribunal has completely mis-directed itself and has passed the award contrary to the provisions of law applicable in such Industrial adjudication. 15. Having considered the aforesaid this Court of the considered view that the award in question cannot be sustained on this ground alone and therefore the matter has to be remitted back to the tribunal to decide issues 3, 4 and 5 afresh in accordance with law. 16. During the course of hearing, the learned counsel for the respondent Bank Shri N. K. Mody placing reliance on the following judgments has submitted that that this Court while exercising jurisdiction under Article 227 cannot remand the matter back as the scope of interference in such matter is very limited. I am unable to agree with the aforesaid submission. The award of the tribunal in the present case is clearly contrary to the principles of law applicable for the purpose of adjudicating such disputes. 17. In the facts and circumstances of the present case, the petition is allowed. The impugned award is quashed and the tribunal is directed to proceed to decide issue No. 3, 4 and 5 afresh from the stage of holding that the enquiry is properly conducted. 17. In the facts and circumstances of the present case, the petition is allowed. The impugned award is quashed and the tribunal is directed to proceed to decide issue No. 3, 4 and 5 afresh from the stage of holding that the enquiry is properly conducted. The Tribunal shall consider the material on record exercise power for adjudicating the dispute in the light of the provisions of Section 11-A and decide issue No. 3, 4 and 5 afresh as indicated hereinabove. 18. With the aforesaid, the petition is disposed of.